|Title||Author(s)||Executive Summary and Citation|
|A literature synthesis of personalised technology- enhanced learning: what works and why||Elizabeth FitzGerald, Ann Jones, Natalia Kucirkova, & Eileen Scanlon||The researchers critically analyzed and reviewed how technology-enhanced learning (TEL) benefits personalized learning in current literature. Their synthesis of the data was driven by their research questions, what are the benefits of TEL and can personalization of TEL lead to a more effective teaching and learning environment. There is very little research as to the effectiveness of TEL on learning. The researchers focused more on the proven benefits of personalized learning which increases student motivation and ownership over their education. Although this review was focused on secondary and university students, there are still benefits for elementary-aged students in regards to using TEL to enhance learner and teacher effectiveness, as well as metacognition. This review is relevant to my own paper as it argues for the use of technology enhanced personalized learning for students. The findings in this review shows the validity of integrating personalized TEL into teaching methods as it contributes to more effective learning.
Citation: FitzGerald, E., Jones, A., Kucirkova, N., & Scanlon. (2018). A literature synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: what works and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26
|Implementation of technology-supported personalized learning — its impact on instructional quality||Regina Schmid, Christine Pauli, Rita Stebler, Kurt Reusser, & Dominik Petko||In this study, the researchers assessed how technology supported personalized learning in eighth grade students from Swiss schools. This study investigated how student centered teaching methods, technology-supported personalized learning (TEME) and students’ voice and choice in technology-supported personalized learning (VOCH) positively affected instructional quality (supportive climate, classroom management, cognitive activation). Data for the study was collected through a student questionnaire using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The major finding was that TEME is correlated to a supportive climate and cognitive activation in students. The study argues that student-centered teaching methods allow for students to have more voice and choice in technology-supported education that meets their personalized learning needs. There was no effect found on classroom management as this strongly relies on the ability and style of each teacher. However, the schools used in this study were chosen due to already moving in the direction of personalized learning for their students and so results may not be replicated in a school where there is little to no previous knowledge of personalized learning. Using technology to support students’ learning by giving them more voice and choice leads to students to be more engaged in their learning, meeting them where they are at. The findings are relevant to my own study as I wish to explore the best methods for personalized learning through the use of technology.
Citation: Schmid, R., Pauli, C., Stebler, R., Reusser, K., & Petko, D. (2022). Implementation of technology-supported personalized learning — its impact on instructional quality. The Journal of Educational Research, 115(3), 187-198.
|Integrating instructional designs of personalized learning through the lens of universal design for learning||Ling Zhang, Richard Allen Carter Jr, James D. Basham, & Sohyun Yang||This review investigates 61 studies from 2006 to 2020 that analyze how personalized learning (PL) is integrated into the universal design for learning (UDL) framework in PK-12 educational settings. The research questions ask how instructional designs for technology-supported PL align with UDL principles and support learner differences. The authors used four databases to collect the articles using keyword search terms. A coding system from a previous study done by Zhang was used to categorize articles. The UDL guidelines used for correlation to PL were to provide multiple means of representation, multiple means of engagement, and provide multiple means of action and expression. The authors found UDL alignment in many articles focused on PL. The findings suggest there is limited representation in the current literature on how UDL framework and PL can be used in tandem to address the diverse learning needs of students. Although limited, there is validity to the claim UDL and PL work together to best support students’ educational experience. Not all principles of UDL have been included in studies of PL and so provide an incomplete understanding of the alignment of both concepts. My study looks to understand what technology practices best support student success. The findings in this article argue for the inclusion of UDL principles into PL in order to address diverse learning needs in the classroom.
Citation: Zhang, L., Carter Jr, R.A., Basham, J.D., & Yang, S. (2022). Integrating instructional designs of personalized learning through the lens of universal design for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 1639-1659.
|Agency in Educational Technology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Implications for Learning Design||Garvin Brod, Natalie Kucirkova, Joshua Shepherd, Dietsje Jolles, & Inge Molenaar||In this review article the authors investigate how educational technologies (EdTech) can be used to personalize learning for students, giving them more agency over their education and ability to express themselves. The article focuses on apps and platforms such as Epic!, ClassDojo, and Book Creator. The way EdTech gives and supports student agency is a large part of what the authors aim to learn more about. The article intends to summarize how agency is manifested in education as well as discuss how it can be used in children’s EdTech. The authors came to the conclusion that the level of agency given to students by EdTech needs to have a balanced approach where students can choose what they learn, while also having proper content assigned to them. This article has developed my understanding of how much control should be given to students in order to progress their learning. Personalized learning through engaging students in educational technologies is a promising way to support learner engagement.
Citation: Brod, G., Kucirkova, N., Shepherd, J., Jolles, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). Agency in Educational Technology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Implications for Learning Design. Educational Psychology Review, 35(25)
|Effects of Google Sites on Science Achievement Among Year Five Students||Saraswathy Ramasundrum & Renuka V Sathasivam||The authors of the study used a quasi-experimental research design that analyzed the effect of using Google Sites on Year 5 students’ science achievement in Malaysia. Students in the experimental group were given access to different teaching materials such as videos and online notes through Google Sites, where the control group learned from the textbook and traditional classroom instruction. Data was collected through pre/post science questions on states of matter and analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for both the experimental and control group of students. The study findings showed students in the experimental group (using Google Sites) scored higher than those in the control group. The authors argue the study shows that Google Sites is a good platform to use for students to improve their understanding of science concepts and overall achievement. The study’s findings indicate the platform, Google Sites, can be used effectively to support student learning. These findings are relevant to my own study as I seek to discover platforms best suited to supporting student achievement.
Citation: Ramasundrum, S. & Sathasivam, R. (2022). Effects of Google Sites on Science Achievement Among Year Five Students. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2)
|The practical application of e-portfolios in K-12 classrooms: an exploration of three web 2.0 tools by three teachers||Michael Karlin, Gamze Ozogul, Stacy Miles, & Saul Heide||This study analyzes three teachers’ use of different e-portfolios and discusses their successes and challenges with implementation in their classrooms. The authors collected data through a social media and email campaign to interested teachers who already had experiences using e–portfolios. After three teachers were selected they filled out a questionnaire and sent screenshots of students’ portfolios. After the authors collated all the data they used member-checking to ensure the validity of the results were represented according to each teacher’s experience. The three free platforms used for students’ e-portfolios included Wix, Schoology, and Google Sites. The authors argue the use of e-portfolios enables students to better reflect on the learning process, collaborate with peers, and create a resource they can share with future employers. The findings are relevant to my own study as I seek to understand the benefits of using technology to personalize student learning.
Citation: Karlin, M., Ozogul, G., Miles, S., & Heide, S. (2016). The practical application of e-portfolios in K-12 classrooms: an exploration of three web 2.0 tools by three teachers. TechTrends, 60, 374-380.
|Mobile documentation: making the learning process visible to families||Beth A. Buchholz & Summer Riley||This article describes a Kindergarten teacher’s experience using the platform, Seesaw, to document and share student learning online. Collection of data began with an informal conversation between both authors of the study, then led to an exploration of a year’s worth of posts on Seesaw to learn how to document assessment ‘as learning’ rather than ‘of learning’. The article describes the desire to use an online portfolio as a means to show how learning is happening rather than just what is being learned. The findings of this article suggest online platforms can be used effectively in younger school-aged children to document their learning process. The authors argue apps such as Seesaw nurture a move towards more parent involvement in school and an ability to engage with their child’s learning process. This article is relevant to my own study as it argues for the validity of online portfolios as a way to enrich students’ educational experience.
Citation: Buchholz, B.A. & Riley, S. (2020). Mobile documentation: making the learning process visible to families. The Reading Teacher, 74(1), 59-69.
|Building personalized homework from a learning analytics based formative assessment: Effect on fifth-grade students’ understanding of fractions||José Antonio Rodríguez-Martínez, José Antonio González-Calero, Javier del Olmo-Muñoz, David Arnau, & Sergio Tirado-Olivares||In this study, researchers assessed if using a personalized learning analytics (LA) based formative assessment on fraction homework for fifth-grade students had a significant effect on achievement. The study had 127 fifth-grade students participate from two public schools in Spain. A quasi-experimental study with four math sessions used to collect data. After each session students in the control group were given the same set of questions for homework, where the experimental group was given a personalized set of questions relating to their incorrect answers in the previous session. A pencil and paper pre and posttest were given to all students in order to compare results. The results found that the experimental group achieved a higher level of understanding in fraction concepts than students given a generic homework sheet in the control group. The researchers argue the findings confirm the need to personalize student learning to meet the needs of everyone. This study is relevant to my own research as it documents how personalizing students’ learning tasks is the best way to improve student understanding of concepts.
Citation: Rodríguez-Martínez, J.A., González-Calero, J.A., Olmo-Muñoz, J., Arnau, D., & Tirado-Olivares, S. (2022). Building personalized homework from a learning analytics based formative assessment: Effect on fifth-grade students’ understanding of fractions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54, 76-97.