Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Technology functions for personalized learning in learner-centered schools

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Personalized Learning (PL) has been widely promoted. Despite the increasing interest in PL, it is difficult to be implemented, because it can be complicated, costly, and even impossible without the help of powerful and advanced technology. This national survey study aimed at systematically investigating technology usage and needs of teachers in learner-centered schools in the U.S based on the conceptual framework of the Personalized Integrated Education System (PIES). PIES specifies four major functions: recordkeeping, planning, instruction, and assessment. A total of 308 learner-centered schools were identified that met at least three of the five criteria of PL: (1) personalized learning plans, (2) competency-based student progress, (3) criterion-referenced assessment, (4) problem- or project-based learning, and (5) multi-year mentoring. Survey responses of 245 teachers from 41 schools were analyzed. Results indicate that only 12% of teachers responded that they had a technology system that integrated the four major functions. Among the rest, 21% reported that they had no such systems. Technology was most widely used for planning and instruction but not for recordkeeping and assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. K-12 represents the U.S. School system comprising primary and secondary education from kindergarten through grade 12.

References

  • American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics. (ED-04-CO-0040). Washington, DC: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instructions and Curriculum, 1(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, D. L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships. Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, 1–6.

  • Chen, C. (2008a). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers & Education, 51(2), 787–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2008b). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.1.65-75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web-or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M., & Rowe, P. (2008). Students’ response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00745.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education and Skills. (2004a). Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. (Cm 6272). England.

  • Department for Education and Skills. (2004b). A national conversation about personalized learning. Nottingham: DFES.

    Google Scholar 

  • District, Lindsay Unified School. (2017). Beyond reform: Systemic shifts toward personalized learning. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). The technology factor: Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness. Project RED. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://www.pearsonfoundation.org/downloads/ProjectRED_TheTechnolgyFactor.pdf.

  • Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2013). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, B. J. (1995). Getting to know you-multiyear teaching. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 42–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1995). Multilevel research of human systems: Flowers, bouquets and gardens. Human Systems Management, 14(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-1995-14304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Liang, T., Su, Y., & Chen, N. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9237-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G.-J., Kuo, F.-R., Yin, P.-Y., & Chuang, K.-H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G.-J., Sung, H., Hung, C., Huang, I., & Tsai, C. (2012). Development of a personalized educational computer game based on students’ learning styles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9241-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, C.-W. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye, teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, R., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education, 70, 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Introduction. In J. L. Kolodner (Ed.), Case-based learning (Vol. 10, pp. 1–6). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (Eds.). (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. (2014). How to personalize learning in K-12 schools: Five essential design features. Educational Technology, 54(2), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science, 43(5), 561–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9348-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. F., Yeh, Y., Hung, Y. H., & Chang, R. I. (2013). Data mining for providing a personalized learning path in creativity: An application of decision trees. Computers & Education, 68, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, B. L. (2008). From one-size-fits-all to personalized learner-centered learning: The evidence. The FM Duffy Reports, 13(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miliband, D. (2006). Choice and voice in personalised learning. In OECD (Ed.), Schooling for tomorrow personalising education (pp. 21–30). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2012). A new approach to personalization: integrating e-learning and m-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9250-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NYC Department of Education. (2011). Enhancing education through technology: Personalized learning systems initiative. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F3AA52AB-D5C4-4E8C-A880-86FE24AFB2A9/0/PLSReviewExecSum.pdf.

  • OECD. (2006). Schooling for tomorrow: Personalising education. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://miranda.sourceoecd.org/vl=82476007/cl=11/nw=1/rpsv/ij/oecdthemes/99980029/v2006n3/s1/p1l.

  • Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, S. (2011). New learning models: The evolution of online learning into innovative K-12 blended programs. Educational Technology, 51(6), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 579–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2007). Mixed-mode contacts in web surveys: Paper is not necessarily better. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(4), 635–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2014). The learner-centered paradigm of education: Roles for technology. Educational Technology, 54(2), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Aslan, S., Chen, Z., Dutta, P., Huh, Y., Lee, D., et al. (2015). Personalized Integrated Educational System technology functions for the learner-centered paradigm of education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(3), 459–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115603998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., Dutta, P., Chen, Z., & Powell, N. D. P. (2008). Roles for technology in the information-age paradigm of education: Learning management systems. Educational Technology, 48(6), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research & Policy Support Group. (2010). School of One evaluation—2010 spring afterschool and short-term in-school pilot program. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://schoolofone.org/resources/so1_final_report_2010.pdf.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1132774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebba, J., & Britain, G. (2007). An investigation of personalised learning approaches used by schools. England: DFES Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in E-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Software & Information Industry Association. (2010). Innovate to educate: System [Re]design for personalized learning; A report from the 2010 Symposium. In Collaboration with ASCD and the Council of Chief State School Officers. In M. A. Wolf (Ed.). Washington, DC.

  • Song, Y., Wong, L., & Looi, C. (2012). Fostering personalized learning in science inquiry supported by mobile technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9245-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, C., & Patrick, S. (2010). When success is the only option: Designing competency-based pathways for next generation learning. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Coyne, E., Farrington-Flint, L., & Selwood, I. (2007). Impact 2007: Personalising learning with technology. Coventry: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Schools, districts, and states transform seat-based requirements into competency-based pathways to college- and career-readiness. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/schools-districts-and-states-transform-seat-based-requirements-competency-based-pathways-co.

  • U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Competency-based learning or personalized learning. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning.

Download references

Funding

There was no funding received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emporia State University, VH 328, 1 Kellogg Circle, Emporia, KS, 66801, USA

    Dabae Lee & Yeol Huh

  2. Department of Education, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162 East Ho-Ping Rd., Sec 1, Taipei, Taiwan, 106

    Chun-Yi Lin

  3. Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Charles M. Reigeluth

Authors
  1. Dabae Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yeol Huh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chun-Yi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles M. Reigeluth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dabae Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Computer technology incl. tablet PC and smart phones

Please base your responses on the last year, 2011–2012

[Recordkeeping] You used computer technology for keeping record of students’…

 

Yes.

No, but I wish I had it

No, and I don’t want it

Skills/competencies mastered

○

○

○

Career goals

○

○

○

Interests

○

○

○

Characteristics (e.g., learning styles)

○

○

○

[Planning for learning] You used computer technology for planning each students’ learning by deciding on…

 

Yes

No, but I wish I had it

No, and I don’t want it

Learning goals

○

○

○

Personalized learning plans

○

○

○

Uses of computer-based instruction (e.g., tutorials, simulations, etc.)

○

○

○

Project selection

○

○

○

Teammates to work with

○

○

○

Timelines/deadlines for learning activities

○

○

○

Resources for student learning

○

○

○

[Instruction] Your students used computer technology during learning in the following ways…

 

Yes

No, but I wish I had it

No, and I don’t want it

Using computer-based instruction (e.g., tutorials, simulations)

○

○

○

Receiving information about projects

○

○

○

Exploring or finding resources

○

○

○

Sharing resources with other students

○

○

○

Creating products for their projects

○

○

○

[Assessment] You used technology for student assessment in the following ways…

 

Yes

No, but I wish I had it

No, and I don’t want it

Testing different content: to accommodate different student goals

○

○

○

Testing on demand: students take a test when they are ready

○

○

○

Adjusting levels of difficulty to the student automatically

○

○

○

Integrating tests as practice within the instruction

○

○

○

Certifying attainments (mastery)

○

○

○

Providing students with feedback

○

○

○

Receiving statistics about test results for improving instruction or test items

○

○

○

[Integration] My school had (a) major technology system(s) that integrate(s) the following functions. Please provide the name of the system(s)

 

Recordkeeping

Planning for learning

Instruction

Assessment

System name

○

○

○

○

System name

○

○

○

○

System name

○

○

○

○

System name

○

○

○

○

Appendix 2

See Table 9.

Table 9 Comparison of reported technology systems with PIES
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 10.

Table 10 Abbreviations of terms
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, D., Huh, Y., Lin, CY. et al. Technology functions for personalized learning in learner-centered schools. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1269–1302 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9615-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9615-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation