Differences in personalized learning practice and technology use in high- and low-performing learner-centered schools in the United States

Abstract

The Every Student Succeeds Act supports personalized learning (PL) to close achievement gaps of diverse K-12 learners in the United States. Implementing PL into a classroom entails a paradigm change of the educational system. However, it is demanding to transform traditional practice into a personalized one under the pressure of the annual standardized testing while it is unclear which PL approaches are more likely to result in better academic outcomes than others. Using national survey data of ELA teachers in identified learner-centered schools, this study compared high and low-performing learner-centered schools (determined by their standardized test results) in terms of their use of five PL features (personalized learning plan, competency-based student progress, criterion-referenced assessment, project- or problem-based learning, and multi-year mentoring) and their use of technology for the four functions of planning, learning, assessment, and recordkeeping. Generally, teachers in high-performing schools implemented PL more thoroughly and utilized technology for more functions than those in low-performing schools. Teachers in high-performing schools more frequently considered career goals when creating personal learning plans, shared the project outcomes with the community, and assessed non-academic outcomes. They stayed longer with the same students and developed close relationships with more students. Also, they more frequently used technology for sharing resources and reported having a more powerful technology system than those in low-performing schools. This study informs educators, administrators, and researchers of which PL approaches and technology uses are more likely to result in better academic outcomes measured by standardized assessments.

Personalized Learning Practice in U.S. Learner-Centered Schools

“…Children in the program with high implementation fidelity showed significantly greater gains in executive function, reading, mathematics, vocabulary, and social problem-solving at the end of the academic year than their peers in other programs with low implementation fidelity (Lillard, 2012). Lee et al (2021) also found that learner-centered schools that implemented PL more thoroughly generally performed higher in standardized tests than others.…”

“…Due to the difficulty of paradigm change in an entire educational system, teachers often used PL as a supplemental or reactive instructional method rather than as the primary method (Bernacki et al, 2021). This piecemeal approach can be problematic because the effectiveness of PL depends on its implementation fidelity (Lee et al, 2021).…”

Generic Digital Equity Model in Education: Mobile-Assisted Personalized Learning (MAPL) through e-Modules

“…Targeting the K-12 high and low academic performance learners in the United States, Lee et al [40] studied how teachers dealt with both categories of learners differently. While conducting PL in a classroom with high-performing learners, the teachers tend to conduct more detailed and technology-based PL.…”

“…They consider the career goals of learners while planning PL, share project learning outcomes, evaluate nonacademic outcomes, and forge a deep relationship with more learners. Despite the implementation differences, PL practice and technology integration benefited the academic performance of learners [40][41][42][43]. Focusing on K-12 learners, Tsybulsky [44] tested the impacts of digital curation and the utilization of digital tools in choosing, preserving, collecting, arranging, classifying, and sharing digital assets on a PL science subject through a phenomenological qualitative approach.…”

„Ohne Zusammenarbeit würde das gar nicht gehen“ – Kokonstruktive Lehrpersonen-Kooperation bei der Unterrichtsentwicklung zu personalisiertem Lernen

“…Personalisiertes Lernen ist kein klar umrissenes pädagogisches Konzept, sondern ein Sammelbegriff, der bekannte (reform-) didaktische Ansätze (z. B. offener Unterricht, Differenzierung) weiterentwickelt und das Lernen mit digitalen Medien einschließt (Lee et al 2021;Schaumburg 2021;Stebler et al 2021a, b). Auch in der Schweiz arbeiten die Lehrpersonen vieler Volksschulen seit langem gemeinsam und mit Erfolg daran, die ursprünglich frontalunterrichtlich geprägte, didaktische Tradition durch Lehr-Lernszenarien zu ergänzen, mit denen eine stärkere Förderung des selbstgesteuerten, eigenverantwortlichen und dialogisch-kooperativen Lernens angestrebt wird.…”