1

Trends in Instructional Design

Trends in Instructional Design: Personalized Learning

Nuong Nguyen

California State University, Monterey Bay

Cohort MIST XII

In a traditional classroom setting of 20-30 students, it is hard to individualize instruction

for diverse learners based on their learning needs, motivation, and interest. The lower kids are

below grade level, the advanced kids are above grade level, and then there are the students that

are at grade level. A lot of times teachers are satisfied if their students come into their class at

grade level. Many are told to teach to the middle group. However, that would be a disservice to

all the students. Students come to school to learn and to grow. Since there is only one teacher,

the task of teaching students at their zone of proximal development can be daunting. Today, the

trend in instructional technology is emphasizing personalized learning. What is personalized

learning in the present and in the past? Who is using it and how? What are the benefits and

challenges?

What is Personalized Learning?

The most recent definition of personalized learning from Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation, EDUCAUSE, and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation is based on four pillars

or principles: Learner profiles, personal learning paths, competency-based progression, flexible

learning environments (2014). Students have a learning profile, which shows their strengths,

weaknesses, motivation, goals, and feedback. Each student has a personal learning path where

short and long-term goals are set, and the type of instruction varies (2014). There is a

competency-based progression where students have to demonstrate mastery in order to

progress (2014). Lastly, the environment should be flexible to meet students goals. Technology

seems a critical component to achieving these principles (Cavanagh, 2016). Furthermore, the

shift is from a teacher center to student center approach, where students have options on how

they achieve their learning goals.

There are many different views of personalized learning, and there is not just one

definition of personalized learning. Furthermore, since personalized learning is a growing trend,

it is a working definition that is constantly changing with technology and students expectations.

(Wolf, 2010).

Personalized Learning in the Past

Meeting the students needs is not something that is new. Since 1912, with the usage of

an achievement test, people started noticing how different students abilities range (Washburne,

1953). To meet the students needs, teachers use self-instructive materials or workbooks to

help students progress at their level (Washburne, 1953).

The term personalized learning started to be used in the 1960s in S & B Epsteins the

First Book of Teaching Machines to describe programmed learning (1961). B.F. Skinner

describes using teaching machines to allow the learner to go at their own pace using a carefully

constructed program, that has a motivational factor of getting a quick, accurate response (1956).

Even though the personalized learning in the 1960s differs from today, there are many

similarities, like the use of technology to aid student learning. There was also a progression of

difficult questions students had to master and become proficient before moving on to the next

level (Skinner, 1956). In contrast, todays personalized learning is tailored not only to the

students strengths and weaknesses, but also their motivations, interests, and goals (The Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation et. al, 2014). Furthermore, there is more flexibility and control for

the students on what is being learned with the teacher as the facilitator.
 4
Trends in Instructional Design

Who is using Personalized Learning?

According to the U.S. Department of Education, three states are focused on personalized

learning statewide, and 15 other states, including California, have some districts participating

(2016). For example, Vermont requires all public schools to have a personalized learning plan

for each student (Bushweller, 2016). Also, the U.S. Department of Education has awarded 16

districts with more than $350 million dollars in The Race to the Top District competition to

support student achievements and personalized learning (2016). In addition, 150 education

leaders assembled at the SIIA, ASCD, CCSSO Symposium on the topic [Re] Design for

Personalized Learning in 2010 to discuss changes needed to help with student learning.

What are some personalized learning software?

Since last year, my school district, Alisal Union School District, has implemented some

personalized learning software like Lexia, Symphony Math, Read 180, and System 44.

LexiaCore5 (Grades Pre-K-5th) is a blended and personalized reading program that helps

emergent and developing readers. The student takes the initial assessment and based on the

results, the adaptive, online program will have various interactive lessons at their level that they

can choose from. After they have mastered a level, then they move on to the next step. Teachers

are then given a report with lessons that they can print from to pull the student aside if he or she

is struggling with a new concept. All the students are working and learning at their level.

Teachers are then free to help individualize instruction. Symphony Math is similar to

LexiaCore5, since it is by the same founder, but the focus is on math (Kade, 2016).

Other reading blended, personalized programs include Read 180 (Grades 4-8) and System 44

(Grade 3-12). The adaptive program helps students progress at their own pace, where they have
 5
Trends in Instructional Design

options on what they want to learn in language arts. The students have to prove mastery before

moving to the next level. Teachers have access to student data to guide the individual or small

group instruction (Read 180, 2016; System 44, 2016).

Benefits of Personalized Learning

The advantage of personalized learning is that it considers the whole child. Students are

also working at their level, so they no longer have to wait for their peers to catch up to them or to

go along with the classroom pace and miss mastering the concept. Students are held responsible

for their learning, and they are in control of what they want to learn. They can set their goals and

use adaptive technology to help them with their learning path.

However, the research to support comprehensive personalized learning is thin, at best

(Herold, 2016). Since personalized learning is a new trend, there is not much data to show any

benefits on academic achievement. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given $300 million

towards personalized learning research and development, but the findings are still in the

preliminary stages (2016).

Challenges and Consequences

Even though my district is using personalized learning software like LexiaCore5, it is

only happening for 1-2 hours a day. The rest of the day, there is whole group instruction, along

with differentiated instruction. According to Bushwellers article, Personalized learning is not

sweeping through schools, as some would have believed (2016). Some of the challenges

include funding for educational technology, an adaptive curriculum taking into account students

interest, teachers commitment, and research that personalized learning works (Bushweller,

2016).
 6
Trends in Instructional Design

According to Dr. Michael Simonson, he believes that the design of instruction is more

important than the technology that we use and the technologies just allow us to access

information and processes that will assist our learning (2011). Furthermore, technology is only

a resource and the need for a blended learning experience is essential with highly qualified

trained people (Simonson, 2011). Since personalized learning involves a lot of technology,

teachers cannot just rely on it. I agree with Dr. Simonson that designing instruction is important;

however, I believe that designing instruction and technology should go hand in hand. According

to Robert Kozma, media plays an important role in influencing learning (1994, pg. 8). With the

new personalized learning approach, there also needs to be a new model that helps teachers

incorporate technology with individualized and small group instruction to make learning

efficient.

Conclusions

Even though personalized learning is not happening at every school, the new trend is

getting teachers and schools to think about the whole child and how he or she learns. Some

districts and states are requiring personal learning paths that are based on the students

motivation, goals, and academic progress. Students are held accountable for what he or she is

learning with high standards. Furthermore, adaptive technology is allowing teachers to collect

data to customize the students' learning experience further. Students are choosing and learning

content at their level and no longer have to wait idly for other students to progress to the same

level. Teachers no longer have to teach to the middle group but are free to individualize

instruction.
 7
Trends in Instructional Design

References

Bushweller, K. (2016). From the editor: A critical look at the evolution, and future, of

personalized learning. Education Week 36(9). Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/10/19/from-the-editor-a-critical-look-at.html

Cavanagh, S. (2016). What is personalized learning? Educators seek clarity. Education Week

36 (9). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09pl-

overview.h34.html

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Epstein, S. & Epstein, B. (1961). The first book of teaching machines (1st ed.). New York: F.

Watts. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED019892

FloridasfinestTV (2011). Dr. Michael Simonson with Cynthia Burfield, at AECT convention.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mATosGoFzZE

Herold, B. (2016). Personalized learning: What does the research say? Education Week 36 (9).

Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/10/19/personalized-learning-

what-does-the-research-say.html

Kade, N. (2016). Lexia reading core 5. Retrieved from http://www.lexialearning.com/

Kade, N. (2016). Symphony math. Retrieved from http://symphonylearning.com/

Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

References

Read 180. (2016). Read 180. Retrieved from http://www.hmhco.com/products/read-180/

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and

technology (3rd Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Skinner, B.F. (1956). Teaching machine and programmed learning. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTH3ob1IRFo

System 44. (2016). System 44. Retrieved from https://www.hmhco.com/products/system-44/

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Afton Partners, The Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation,

CEE Trust, The Christensen Institute, Charter School Growth Fund, EDUCAUSE.

(2014). A working definition of personalized learning. Retrieved from

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1311874/personalized-learning-working-

definition-fall2014.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the top district. Retrieved November 2, from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/index.html

Washburne, C. (1953). Adjusting the program to the child. Educational Leadership. Retrieved

from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_195312_washburne.pdf

Wolf, M. (2010). Innovate to educate: System [Re]design for personalized learning: A report

from the 2010 symposium. Retrieved from

http://www.siia.net/Portals/0/pdf/Education/PerLearnPaper.pdf