Abstract
None of the existing reviews or meta-analyses have focused on personalized learning that accommodates learners’ interests. To address this issue, we conducted this meta-analysis to examine the effects of personalized learning by interest on self-reports of interest and cognitive load, retention, and transfer, as well as potential moderators of these effects. Based on 26 interest effect sizes (n = 5,335), 8 cognitive load effect sizes (n = 1,228), 46 retention effect sizes (n = 5,991), and 6 transfer effect sizes (n = 375) from 34 publications, our analysis revealed that a) personalized learning by interest had a medium-to-large effect on interest (g = 0.55), a medium-to-large effect on cognitive load (g = 0.54), a medium effect on retention (g = 0.48), and a medium effect on transfer (g = 0.36); b) the effect on interest was moderated by the diagnostic approach, grain size, and the domain, c) the effect on retention varied across learners from different continents, and d) the effect on retention was larger for quasi-experimental studies than experimental studies. Results are discussed in terms of their implications, limitations, and potential to inform future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Akinsola, M. K., & Awofala, A. O. (2009). Effect of personalization of instruction on students’ achievement and self-efficacy in mathematics word problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(3), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390802643169
Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2017). Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. In R. E. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2nd ed., pp. 522–560). Routledge.
Anand, P. G., & Ross, S. M. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.1.72
Awofala, A. O. (2014). Examining personalisation of instruction, attitudes toward and achievement in mathematics word problems among Nigerian senior secondary school students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2(4), 273–288.
Awofala, A. O. (2016). Effect of personalisation of instruction on students’ motivation to learn mathematics word problems in Nigeria. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 486–509.
Awofala, A. O. A., Balogun, T. A., & Olagunju, M. A. (2011). Effects of three modes of personalisation on students’ achievement in mathematical word problems in Nigeria. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/awofala.pdf
Bernacki, M. L., & Walkington, C. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000250
Bernacki, M. L., Greene, M. J., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom, to what, how, and for what purpose (s)? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1675–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8
Borenstein, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). Effect sizes for meta-analysis. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 38, 207–242.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020
Bracken, B. A. (1982). Effect of personalized basal stories on the reading comprehension of fourth-grade poor and average readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(4), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(82)90015-7
Cakir, O., & Simsek, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of the effects of computer and paper-based personalization on student achievement. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1524–1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.018
Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y. L., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012). Predicting early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial characteristics, and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027180
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O., & Paas, F. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1
Chen, C. J., & Liu, P. L. (2007). Personalized computer-assisted mathematics problem-solving program and its impact on Taiwanese students. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 105–121.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615
Choi, J. I., & Hannafin, M. (1997). The effects of instructional context and reasoning complexity on mathematics problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299728
Clinton, V., & Walkington, C. (2019). Interest-enhancing approaches to mathematics curriculum design: Illustrations and personalization. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1568958
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Ertem, I. S. (2013). The influence of personalization of online texts on elementary school students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(3), 218–228.
Fu, R., Vandermeer, B. W., Shamliyan, T. A., O’Neil, M. E., Yazdi, F., Fox, S. H., & Morton, S. C. (2013). Handling continuous outcomes in quantitative synthesis. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154408/
Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133
Golubickis, M., & Macrae, C. N. (2021). That’s me in the spotlight: Self-relevance modulates attentional breadth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(6), 1915–1922. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01964-3
Gray, H. M., Ambady, N., Lowenthal, W. T., & Deldin, P. (2004). P300 as an index of attention to self-relevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00092-1
Guida, A., Tardieu, H., & Nicolas, S. (2009). The personalisation method applied to a working memory task: Evidence of long-term working memory effects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 862–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802236369
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K., Callan, J., Eskenazi, M., Juffs, A., & Wilson, L. (2010). Personalization of reading passages improves vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAI-2010-0003
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Higgins, J. P., Li, T., & Deeks, J. J. (2019). Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 143–176. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-06#section-6-5-2. Accessed 8 Aug 2024.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.006
Iterbeke, K., Schelfhout, W., & De Witte, K. (2022). The role of students’ interests during computer-assisted learning: A field experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107168
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
Ku, H. Y., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319857
Ku, H. Y., & Sullivan, H. J. (2002). Student performance and attitudes using personalized mathematics instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504959
Ku, H. Y., Harter, C. A., Liu, P. L., Thompson, L., & Cheng, Y. C. (2007). The effects of individually personalized computer-based instructional program on solving mathematics problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.017
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T. M. (2021). Features and trends of personalised learning: A review of journal publications from 2001 to 2018. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1811735
Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T. M. (2023). Personalisation in STE(A)M education: A review of literature from 2011 to 2020. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35, 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09341-2
Liu, Z., Wen, J., Liu, Y., & Hu, C. P. (2023). The effectiveness of self: A meta‐analysis of using self‐referential encoding techniques in education. British Journal of Educational Psychology.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12636
López, C. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (1991). Effects of personalized math instruction for Hispanic students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(91)90009-A
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296895
Lwo, L. S. (1992). Effects of individualized examples and personalized contexts in computer-based adaptive teaching of algebra word problems. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.
Major, L., Francis, G. A., & Tsapali, M. (2021). The effectiveness of technology-supported personalised learning in low-and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13116
Martin, F., Chen, Y., Moore, R. L., & Westine, C. D. (2020). Systematic review of adaptive learning research designs, context, strategies, and technologies from 2009 to 2018. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1903–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09793-2
Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
Murphy, L. O., & Ross, S. M. (1990). Protagonist gender as a design variable in adapting mathematics story problems to learner interests. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(3), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298179
Neville, D. D., & Hoffman, R. R. (1981). The effect of personalized stories on the cloze comprehension of seventh grade retarded readers. Journal of Reading, 24(6), 475–478. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40028888
Olney, A. M., Gilbert, S. B., & Rivers, K. (2022). Preface to the special issue on creating and improving adaptive learning: Smart authoring tools and processes. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00277-9
Plass, J. L., & Pawar, S. (2020). Toward a taxonomy of adaptivity for learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1719943
Reber, R., Canning, E. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Personalized education to increase interest. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 449–454.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.
Resig, J. J. (2017). The effects of group-based context personalization on learning outcomes and motivation. Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677
Ross, S. M., & Anand, P. G. (1987). A computer-based strategy for personalizing verbal problems in teaching mathematics. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35(3), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02793843
Schrager, S. (1978). The effect of computer personalization of practice materials on spelling instruction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Shchedrina, E., Galkina, E., Petunina, I., & Lushkov, R. (2020). Integration of mobile learning into complex problem-solving processes during STEM education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(21), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i21.18463
Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020). A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 33.
Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242
Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Better P-curves: Making P-curve analysis more robust to errors, fraud, and ambitious P-hacking, a Reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), 1146–1152. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000104
Sterne, J. A., Becker, B. J., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75–98). Wiley.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371
Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Office of Educational Technology, Washington, D.C. http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2024.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. Office of Educational Technology, Washington, D.C. http://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2024.
Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., & Van der Ven, S. H. (2021). Why and for whom does personalizing math problems enhance performance? Testing the mediation of enjoyment and cognitive load at different ability levels. Learning and Individual Differences, 87, 101982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.101982
Van Schoors, R., Elen, J., Raes, A., & Depaepe, F. (2021). An overview of 25 years of research on digital personalised learning in primary and secondary education: A systematic review of conceptual and methodological trends. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1798–1822. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13148
von Hippel, P. T. (2015). The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z
Vukmirovic, D. (2013). The effect of individual personalization on solving mathematical world problems. Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882
Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2019). Personalizing algebra to students’ individual interests in an intelligent tutoring system: Moderators of impact. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29, 58–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-018-0168-1
Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2020). Appraising research on personalized learning: Definitions, theoretical alignment, advancements, and future directions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1747757
Wang, S., Christensen, C., Cui, W., Tong, R., Yarnall, L., Shear, L., & Feng, M. (2020). When adaptive learning is effective learning: Comparison of an adaptive learning system to teacher-led instruction. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1808794
Watters, A. (2023). Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12262.001.0001
Wilson, D. B. (n.d.). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. Retrieved from https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/effect-size-calculator.html Accessed 12/07/2023
Xie, H., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Wang, C. C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education, 140, 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599
Yang, C. C., & Ogata, H. (2023). Personalized learning analytics intervention approach for enhancing student learning achievement and behavioral engagement in blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28(3), 2509–2528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11291-2
Yu, Z., Gao, M., & Wang, L. (2021). The effect of educational games on learning outcomes, student motivation, engagement and satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120969214
Zhang, L., Basham, J. D., & Yang, S. (2020a). Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100339
Zhang, L., Yang, S., & Carter, R. A. (2020b). Personalized learning and ESSA: What we know and where we go. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728448
Zheng, L., Long, M., Zhong, L., & Gyasi, J. F. (2022). The effectiveness of technology-facilitated personalized learning on learning achievements and learning perceptions: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11807–11830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11092-7
Zhong, L. (2022). A systematic review of personalized learning in higher education: learning content structure, learning materials sequence, and learning readiness support. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–21. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2061006
Zhou, Y., Ye, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). The influence of personalized learning intervention system on student learning a study of junior middle school. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 19(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-10-2021-0192
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the University of Macau Start-up Research Grant (Grant No. SRG2022-00047-FED).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, L., Lin, X., Zhang, X. et al. The Personalized Learning by Interest Effect on Interest, Cognitive Load, Retention, and Transfer: A Meta-Analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 36, 88 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09933-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09933-7