Personalizing the design of computer‐based instruction to enhance learning

This paper reports two studies designed to investigate the effect on learning outcomes of matching individuals’ preferred cognitive styles to computer‐based instructional (CBI) material. Study 1 considered the styles individually as Verbalizer, Imager, Wholist and Analytic. Study 2 considered the bi‐dimensional nature of cognitive styles in order to assess the full ramification of cognitive styles on learning: Analytic/Imager, Analytic/ Verbalizer, Wholist/Imager and the Wholist/Verbalizer. The mix of images and text, the nature of the text material, use of advance organizers and proximity of information to facilitate meaningful connections between various pieces of information were some of the considerations in the design of the CBI material. In a quasi‐experimental format, students’ cognitive styles were analysed by Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) software. On the basis of the CSA result, the system defaulted students to either matched or mismatched CBI material by alternating between the two formats. The instructional material had a learning and a test phase. Learning outcome was tested on recall, labelling, explanation and problem‐solving tasks. Comparison of the matched and mismatched instruction did not indicate significant difference between the groups, but the consistently better performance by the matched group suggests potential for further investigations where the limitations cited in this paper are eliminated. The result did indicate a significant difference between the four cognitive styles with the Wholist/Verbalizer group performing better then all other cognitive styles. Analysing the difference between cognitive styles on individual test tasks indicated significant difference on recall, labelling and explanation, suggesting that certain test tasks may suit certain cognitive styles

A literature synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: what works and why

Personalised learning, having seen both surges and declines in popularity over the past few decades, is once again enjoying a resurgence. Examples include digital resources tailored to a particular learner’s needs, or individual feedback on a student’s assessed work. In addition, personalised technology-enhanced learning (TEL) now seems to be attracting interest from philanthropists and venture capitalists indicating a new level of enthusiasm for the area and a potential growth industry. However, these industries may be driven by profit rather than pedagogy, and hence it is vital these new developments are informed by relevant, evidence-based research. For many people, personalised learning is an ambiguous and even loaded term that promises much but does not always deliver. This paper provides an in-depth and critical review and synthesis of how personalisation has been represented in the literature since 2000, with a particular focus on TEL. We examine the reasons why personalised learning can be beneficial and examine how TEL can contribute to this. We also unpack how personalisation can contribute to more effective learning. Lastly, we examine the limitations of personalised learning and discuss the potential impacts on wider stakeholders

Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 20082015

In 2008, iNACOL produced a series of papers documenting promising practices identified throughout the field of K–12 online learning. Since then, we have witnessed a tremendous acceleration of transformative policy and practice driving personalized learning in the K–12 education space. State, district, school, and classroom leaders recognize that the ultimate potential for blended and online learning lies in the opportunity to transform the education system and enable higher levels of learning through competency-based approaches.iNACOL's core work adds significant value to the field by providing a powerful practitioner voice in policy advocacy, communications, and in the creation of resources and best practices to enable transformational change in K–12 education.We worked with leaders throughout the field to update these resources for a new generation of pioneers working towards the creation of student-centered learning environments.This refreshed series, Promising Practices in Blended and Online Learning, explores some of the approaches developed by practitioners and policymakers in response to key issues in K–12 education, including:Blended Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 2008-2015;Using Blended and Online Learning for Credit Recovery and At-Risk Students;Oversight and Management of Blended and Online Programs: Ensuring Quality and Accountability; andFunding and Legislation for Blended and Online Education.Personalized learning environments provide the very best educational opportunities and personalized pathways for all students, with highly qualified teachers delivering world-class instruction using innovative digital resources and content. Through this series of white papers, we are pleased to share the promising practices in K–12 blended, online, and competency education transforming teaching and learning today

Challenges in personalisation: supporting mobile science inquiry learning across contexts

The Personal Inquiry project (PI) aimed to develop and implement personal inquiries in secondary schools in order to motivate engagement in scientific inquiry through its focus on inquiries of personal interest to young learners. This paper describes the authors’ experiences working with teachers in one school over three years, iteratively developing the nQuire toolkit* and pedagogical support across different inquiries which can be used in and across different contexts, ranging from the classroom to field trips and at home. As nQuire is web based, and can be accessed in different locations and on a range of networked devices it supports mobile inquiry learning and is the main resource for bridging between contexts. This paper discusses issues related to developing personal inquiries in schools, working across different contexts and focusing on three aspects of personalisation: choice, personal relevance and learner responsibility. It discusses the challenges faced when developing personalised inquiries in science, both in more traditional classroom contexts and in the less formal environment of an after school club. Drawing on technology supported inquiries from both these contexts it reflects on some of the constraints and tensions in providing learners with choice in their inquiries, identifying both the constraints and successes

Improving School Improvement

PREFACEIn opening this volume, you might be thinking:Is another book on school improvement really needed?Clearly our answer is yes. Our analyses of prevailing school improvement legislation, planning, and literature indicates fundamental deficiencies, especially with respect to enhancing equity of opportunity and closing the achievement gap.Here is what our work uniquely brings to policy and planning tables:(1) An expanded framework for school improvement – We highlight that moving from a two- to a three-component policy and practice framework is essential for closing the opportunity and achievement gaps. (That is, expanding from focusing primarily on instruction and management/government concerns by establishing a third primary component to improve how schools address barriers to learning and teaching.)(2) An emphasis on integrating a deep understanding of motivation – We underscore that concerns about engagement, management of behavior, school climate, equity of opportunity, and student outcomes require an up-to-date grasp of motivation and especially intrinsic motivation.(3) Clarification of the nature and scope of personalized teaching – We define personalization as the process of matching learner motivation and capabilities and stress that it is the learner's perception that determines whether the match is a good one.(4) A reframing of remediation and special education – We formulate these processes as personalized special assistance that is applied in and out of classrooms and practiced in a sequential and hierarchical manner.(5) A prototype for transforming student and learning supports – We provide a framework for a unified, comprehensive, and equitable system designed to address barriers to learning and teaching and re-engage disconnected students and families.(6) A reworking of the leadership structure for whole school improvement --We outline how the operational infrastructure can and must be realigned in keeping with a three component school improvement framework.(7) A systemic approach to enhancing school-community collaboration – We delineate a leadership role for schools in outreaching to communities in order to work on shared concerns through a formal collaborative operational infrastructure that enables weaving together resources to advance the work.(8) An expanded framework for school accountability – We reframe school accountability to ensure a balanced approach that accounts for a shift to a three component school improvement policy.(9) Guidance for substantive, scalable, and sustainable systemic changes –We frame mechanisms and discuss lessons learned related to facilitating fundamental systemic changes and replicating and sustaining them across a district.The frameworks and practices presented are based on our many years of work in schools and from efforts to enhance school-community collaboration. We incorporate insights from various theories and the large body of relevant research and from lessons learned and shared by many school leaders and staff who strive everyday to do their best for children.Our emphasis on new directions in no way is meant to demean current efforts. We know that the demands placed on those working in schools go well beyond what anyone should be asked to do. Given the current working conditions in many schools, our intent is to help make the hard work generate better results. To this end, we highlight new directions and systemic pathways for improving school outcomes.Some of what we propose is difficult to accomplish. Hopefully, the fact that there are schools, districts, and state agencies already trailblazing the way will engender a sense of hope and encouragement to those committed to innovation.It will be obvious that our work owes much to many. We are especially grateful to those who are pioneering major systemic changes across the country. These leaders and so many in the field have generously offered their insights and wisdom. And, of course, we are indebted to hundreds of scholars whose research and writing is a shared treasure. As always, we take this opportunity to thank Perry Nelson and the host of graduate and undergraduate students at UCLA who contribute so much to our work each day, and to the many young people and their families who continue to teach us all.Respectfully submitted for your consideration,Howard Adelman & Linda Taylo

Integrating Technology With Student-Centered Learning

Reviews research on technology's role in personalizing learning, its integration into curriculum-based and school- or district-wide initiatives, and the potential of emerging digital technologies to expand student-centered learning. Outlines implications

Student Mathematics Performance in Year One Implementation of Teach to One: Math

This report examines mathematics test data from the first year of implementation (2012-13) of the Teach to One: Math (TtO) approach in seven urban middle schools in Chicago, New York City, and Washington D.C. Researchers addressed the question: How did Tto students' growth on the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) mathematics assessment compare with national norms?To answer this question, the researchers analyzed student performance on the MAP test, an established instrument developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA). The researchers then compared these results to the national norms published by NWEA (2011). Please note that these analyses cannot attribute Tto student results to the TtO model: the data available did not permit the use of an experimental design, which would be necessary to establish a link between the implementation of the program and the student test results. While the TtO results are promising, its performance beyond one year should be analyzed using an experimental design, in order to remove unmeasured differences between TtO students and schools with an appropriate comparison sample