Journal of Research on Technology in Education

ISSN: 1539-1523 (Print) 1945-0818 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujrt20

Personalized learning and ESSA: What we know

and where we go

Ling Zhang, Sohyun Yang & Richard Allen Carter

To cite this article: Ling Zhang, Sohyun Yang & Richard Allen Carter (2020) Personalized
learning and ESSA: What we know and where we go, Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 52:3, 253-274, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1728448

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728448

Published online: 22 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1770

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrt20
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
2020, VOL. 52, NO. 3, 253–274
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728448

Personalized learning and ESSA: What we know and where

we go
Ling Zhanga, Sohyun Yanga, and Richard Allen Carter, Jr.b
a
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA; bUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY
ABSTRACT Received: 21 May 2019
Revised 21 January 2020
The passage of the 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), affords states Accepted 7 February 2020
funding for many new options to address the needs of learners. One of
the prominent options is personalized learning (PL). This study sought to KEYWORDS
determine how states positioned PL in their state plans. This study used a Personalized learning;
qualitative research design to analyze state ESSA plans for presence of and thematic analysis
relation to PL. From this analysis, four themes emerged, (a) definitions of
PL, (b) goals of PL for students, (c) supports for PL, and (d) partnership for
PL. The findings from this study suggested that many states contain
aspects of PL in their state plans; however, there is little consensus of how
to best implement PL. This article reported on these findings as well as
offered guidance to policymakers and state departments of education on
how to operationalize and implement PL.

Recently, personalized learning (PL) has gained traction as a means to address the increasing stu-
dent diversity in modern classrooms. As an emergent education innovation, PL has been written
into the latest U.S. federal education law—the Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA) of 2015—and
referenced ten times under four titles of ESSA (see Appendix). Without clearly defining PL, ESSA
endorses high-quality academic tutoring as a component of PL that can be provided as a direct
student service to improve the academic achievement of the disadvantaged students (20 U.S.C §
1003 A[c][3][D]). PL is also referred to in ESSA as an instructional practice supported by the
effective use of data and information to strengthen students’ digital learning experiences
(20 U.S.C § 4102 A[3][C]).
A majority of these references emphasize the effective use of technology and provision of pro-
fessional learning for educators and administrators to personalize learning and support the
improvement of student academic achievement. Specifically, ESSA provides a funding structure
for states to build 21st-century schools by encouraging state spending on programs that increase
student access to personalized and rigorous learning experiences supported by technology
(20 U.S.C § 4106[d][3][C]). Prior to receiving funds, local education agencies (LEAs) need to be
examined for their needs for improvement of “access to PL experiences supported by technology
and professional development for the effective use of data and technology” (20 U.S.C §
4106[d][1][C]). The regulations in ESSA highlight that LEAs can use the received funds to
address technology readiness needs, use technologies consistent with the framework of Universal
Design for Learning (UDL)1, and build capacity for school administrators to support teachers in
using data and technology to personalize learning (20 U.S.C § 4106[d][3][C][i][I-III]).

CONTACT Richard Allen Carter [email protected] University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., 82071-0333
Laramie, KS, USA.
ß 2020 ISTE
254 L. ZHANG ET AL.

Congruence and distinction in PL definitions

Despite the reference to PL in ESSA, there is no common understanding of how PL should be
operationalized in order to achieve its full potential to support learning for all students. Several
definitions of PL have emerged from education policy documents or research reports in the con-
text of the United States. For instance, the National Education Technology Plan (NETP) devel-
oped by the U.S. Department of Education (2016) defines PL as “instruction in which the pace of
learning and the instructional approach are optimized for the needs of each learner” (p. 7). The
Plan elaborates that in a PL environment, learning objectives, instructional approaches, instruc-
tional content and its sequencing—which are often meaningful, learner interest-driven, and self-
initiated—are all customized to meet individual learners’ needs.
Other educational organizations and research centers have provided similar definitions of PL
and associated operational elements. For example, researchers from the Center on Online
Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD) conceptualized PL as “an approach in which
the instructional approach, outcomes, content, activities, pace, tools, and supports are customized
for each individual learners’ needs” (Basham, Stahl, Ortiz, Rice, & Smith, 2015, p. 10). A slight
distinction is that the COLSD researchers also incorporated student outcomes as a personalizable
element. In addition, they elaborated on this definition by highlighting real-time progress moni-
toring and competency-based instructional design as two key components of PL (Basham et al.,
2015). Similarly, the International Association of K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL) conceptualizes
PL as “tailoring learning for each student’s strengths, needs and interests” to support all learners
to achieve the highest standards possible (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013, p. 4). Like the NETP
definition, iNACOL’s definition also emphasized learner autonomy by enabling student voice and
choice in what, how, when, and where they learn.
Several research reports (e.g., Basham, Hall, Carter, & Stahl, 2016; Bingham, 2017; Bingham,
Pane, Steiner, & Hamilton, 2018) borrowed PL definitions from the abovementioned government
and/or advocacy reports. For example, in both Bingham et al. (2018) and Basham et al. (2016)
studies, PL was defined with reference to the NETP, iNACOL, and/or Gates Foundation reports.
Their definitions converge in terms of tailoring instruction and highlighting flexibility in learning.
Nevertheless, Bingham et al. (2018) underscored that PL is a school-wide technology-based
instructional model; Basham et al. (2016) posited that PL requires more than technology. Based
on the observations of a widely-recognized PL environment, Basham et al. (2016) concluded that
learner self-regulation, prevalence of actionable near-real-time data, various structures supporting
student voice and feedback, and incorporation of the principles of UDL emerged as key opera-
tionalized elements of PL. Other studies took relatively different perspectives to define PL by
either focusing on specific operational elements (e.g., instructional practices highlighting learner-
educator relationships or fostering learner interest; see Iver, 2011, Walkington & Bernacki, 2018 )
or conceptualizing it as a digital innovation (e.g., advanced technologies operating on data mining
or learning analytics to adapt learning to learners; see Arroyo et al., 2014; Chen, 2008).

Research efforts associated with PL designs and implementation

The analysis of different definitions of PL from the federal law, policy documents, organization
and research reports reveals that most PL definitions embrace the concept of tailoring learning to
meet individual learners’ needs, strengths, and interests. However, there is a lack of a shared
understanding of how to operationalize personalization in learning. Regardless, one key tenet of
operationalizing PL is to support all learners; but this also adds complexity to its operationaliza-
tion process. This process requires leveraging different components of education systems that
work seamlessly in supporting a wide range of learner variability in terms of their learning needs
and preferences (Abbott et al., 2015). Because of the broadness of the concept, the current
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 255

research efforts on investigating the implementation of PL and its impact on student outcomes
appear to diverge from each other, resulting in varying research trends that take different theoret-
ical stances to investigate the innovation (Zhang, Basham, & Yang, in press).
In alignment with the emphasis on the role of technology in supporting PL as it is embodied
in ESSA and other reports, many studies on PL investigated the affordance and/or effects of using
advanced technologies to personalize student learning (see Arroyo et al., 2014; Chen, 2008;
Robinson & Sebba, 2010). According to FitzGerald, Jones, Kucirkova, and Scanlon (2018), the
most salient PL technologies and techniques that emerged from the literature in the last decade
include intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), adaptive educational hypermedia (AEH), adaptive
assessment, science inquiry learning, gaming and informal learning, learning analytics, and per-
sonalized books. However, researchers also posited that if it is only about increasing efficiency of
delivering learning materials tailored to individual learners, the technology-relied approach to PL
would neglect the interaction among learning environments, educators, and students (Basham
et al., 2016; Dishon, 2017).
Another research trend that emerged from the literature is context personalization, which is
defined as a type of intervention or instructional design strategy for PL that incorporates stu-
dents’ personal interests and preferences into learning tasks (see Bernacki & Walkington, 2018;
Cakir & Simsek, 2010; Høgheim & Reber, 2015). Studies on context personalization are usually
grounded in research in cognition, motivation, and emotion (see Cordova & Lepper, 1996;
Walkington, 2013). This approach to PL focuses on tailoring learning materials to learners’ inter-
ests (especially out-of-school interests), experiences, cultural background, and/or other familiar
contexts, clearly highlighting the importance of increasing relevance and authenticity of learning
(Walkington & Bernacki, 2018). For example, in an experimental study conducted by Høgheim
and Reber (2015), mathematical learning materials were customized to students’ personal interest
in popular culture, which showed positive impacts on student learning. Bernacki and Walkington
(2018) also found that personalizing math problems based on students’ out-of-school interests
using an intelligent tutoring software increased students’ level of interest and learning outcomes.
However, it is noted that overall the current interventions on context personalization have dem-
onstrated mixed results regarding its impact on student learning outcomes (Walkington &
Bernacki, 2018; Zhang et al., in press).
In addition, supporting student autonomy in decision-making processes also emerged from the
literature as a key element of PL (see Basham et al., 2016; Bingham et al., 2018; Robinson &
Sebba, 2010). Psychologically, providing choice can enhance intrinsic motivation, effort, task per-
formance among other outcomes (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). However, having too many
choices can also undermine students’ feelings of competence and engagement (Evans & Boucher,
2015). Consistent with these research results, a case study on choice provision in a PL environ-
ment showed that the profusion of choice was actually demotivating for some students, and bal-
ancing between student choice and academic rigor was also challenging for teachers
(Netcoh, 2017).

Ongoing efforts and promising policies to advance PL

Currently, some states and districts have begun initiatives to innovate their schools by imple-
menting PL to improve education outcomes for all students. Before the passage of ESSA in 2015,
Georgia launched an initiative called Path to Personalized Learning, which aimed to establish
statewide data systems, provide teacher training, and improve technological infrastructure across
schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The New York City Department of Education also
launched iZone initiatives through which iZone schools were provided with training, policy, and
professional supports as they design blended learning and integrate technology to personalize stu-
dent learning (N.Y.C. Department of Education, 2011).
256 L. ZHANG ET AL.

The call for increasing student access to personalized, rigorous learning in ESSA and other
government documents will potentially drive more adoption and implementation of the innov-
ation across the nation. After the passage of ESSA, researchers from iNACOL released two
reports that presented an overview of promising state policies for PL and provided recommen-
dations for state policymakers to create system-wide transformation through PL to support all
learners (Patrick, Worthen, Frost, & Gentz, 2016a; 2016b). The reports categorized states with
policies to advance PL into states getting started and launching, states moving forward through
specific policies to support PL, and states taking a comprehensive and statewide approach
for PL.
According to these reports, states getting started, such as Iowa, West Virginia, Colorado, and
New York, have enabling policies to remove barriers for school districts to implement compe-
tency-based learning, credit flexibility, innovation zones, pilot programs, and multiple pathways.
States moving forward, such as Maine, New Hampshire, and Arkansas, have put strong structures
in place to support proficiency-based diplomas, modernized systems of assessments, and state ini-
tiatives to build the capacity of school leaders and educators. Additionally, the state of Vermont
was the only state that has taken a comprehensive policy approach to support the implementation
of PL within an integrated system. While these reports provided a glimpse of the promising state
policies that support schools, districts, and states to launch or move forward with the initiatives
to implement PL, it is unclear as to how the final version of state ESSA plans defines, regulates,
or mandates PL.

The purpose of the study and research questions

To date, there has been no specific definition of PL given by ESSA or shared understanding of
the emergent phenomenon in the field. The mandates in ESSA require a certain portion of federal
funds to be provided to states and LEAs to launch improvement initiatives such as PL to make
systemic changes; however, there is no specific guidance on what programs, services, require-
ments, among other things, schools and agencies can implement to facilitate the systemic changes.
The purpose of the study was to explore how states conceptualize and operationalize PL in the
ESSA plans as well as to identify emergent themes from the plans. Specifically, this review was
guided by the following research questions:

1. How is PL conceptualized and operationalized in state ESSA plans?

2. What are the identified themes emerging from the state ESSA plans?

Method
The primary data were collected from 50 state ESSA plans and the District of Columbia, with
organization reports on PL as complementary data. Thematic analysis with an iterative and reflex-
ive coding process was used to analyze categories and themes of PL emerging from the state pol-
icy documentation (Herzog, Handke, & Hitters, 2019).
The thematic analysis is to understand the research questions by “identifying, analysing, and
reporting themes” from data collected (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). Using a thematic analysis
allowed the research team to discover emergent themes regarding how states positioned PL in
state ESSA plans. An initial scan of the data provided initial coding. From there, the team met to
discuss how these data emerged into themes. The aim of this was to identify the differences in
how PL was being described in state ESSA plans. More specifically, in how PL was positioned to
serve multiple populations within the school and how these populations could potentially benefit.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 257

Sample
In the fall of 2018, the research team began scanning state ESSA plans of all 50 states, the
District of Columbia. It is important to note that state ESSA plans underwent several iterations;
therefore, the research team was mindful to note if a state plan was finalized version. Ultimately,
the team ensured that all plans were scanned at their latest iterations. In addition to state ESSA
plans, the research team reviewed reports, documents, and articles from educational organizations
such as iNACOL and COLSD to generate an operational definition for the term PL. The research
team only focused on state ESSA plans. This decision was made to ensure that we focused on the
impact of how states addressed PL at the state level through the state level ESSA plans. All docu-
ments were acquired through the internet and open for public view.

Procedure
The thematic analysis method consisted of six phases. In phase one, researchers collected relevant
documents including state ESSA plans, as well as an ESSA plan from the District of Columbia.
Initially, researchers reviewed this information independently by using NVivo 12. In the begin-
ning of the individual scan procedure, the research team met to agree on a definition, as well as
discuss timelines for completion of initial scan.
In phase two, researchers independently scanned the ESSA plans and generated initial codes.
The independent codes were entered in a database that would guide the remainder of the study.
After initial codes were generated, the research team met to compare coding. This meeting lead
to agreement on coding.
In phase three, researchers met to begin analyzing the codes for themes. The research team
spent significant time discussing what constituted a theme. With the team in agreement, themes
and subthemes began to emerge.
In phase four, the research team reviewed themes. The research team reflected on the initial
analysis and discussed if the themes were still relevant. In addition, we discussed if new themes
had emerged after reflection. The team reviewed the initial themes to determine of the theme was
strong enough to stand alone or if the theme should be combined with another to solidify the
findings. In addition, the team began the process of naming themes to represent the findings.
The research team randomly selected states, using a mapping tool, to review the selected themes.
In this review, the analysis of state ESSA plans was compared to our initial themes. Of the five
state ESSA plans that were randomly selected from states that had been coded as having presence
of PL in the ESSA plan, all initial themes aligned (Hauerwas, Brown, & Scott, 2013). It is import-
ant to note that no new themes emerged or missing data to suggest that the team needed to con-
duct further review.
In phase five, researchers conducted one last analysis to finalize themes. The team reviewed
names to determine if the names remained representative in the final analysis. Each team member
was given the opportunity to discuss their feelings on the theme names. This phase also allowed
team members to ask questions in relation to the final analysis. It was determined that the team
shared understandings of the final analysis and agreed on the final themes (See Table 1).
In phase six, the team discussed the final structure of the findings and discussed a plan for
outlining the findings. All team members agreed on the final structure and began the process of
detailing the findings.

Results
The aim of this article was to identify how PL was positioned in the final version of state ESSA
plans where the research questions guided the initial findings from the data. The results from the
258 L. ZHANG ET AL.

Table 1. Personalized learning (PL) in state ESSA plans.

State Aspects of PL in State ESSA Plans Link to State ESSA Plan

AL PPD https://www.alsde.edu/dept/essa/State%20Plan/Alabama%20ESSA%20Final.pdf
AK PPD https://education.alaska.gov/akessa/stateplan
AZ MG, PDPL https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=59b185613217e1015407f276
AR PPD http://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/public/userfiles/Public_School_
Accountability/ESSA
CA WREO https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/es/documents/essastateplan2018.pdf
CO SYSTECH https://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/co-consolidatedstateplan-
final-websitepdf
DE PPD https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/3794
GA PPD, WREO https://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/communications/
Documents/ESSA%2011-28-18.pdf
IL WREO https://www.isbe.net/Documents/ESSA-Amendment1-redline.pdf
IN STUTECH https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/essa/essa-amendment7219-clean.pdf
IA STUTECH https://educateiowa.gov/documents/every-student-succeeds-act/2018/08/may-
2018-approved-state-plan-essa
MD AP, PPD http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Pages/DAPI/ESSA/index.aspx
MI STUTECH https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Michigan-ESSA-Plan_11-15-17_
606136_7.pdf
MN FUN, SCHTECH https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/ESSA/mnstp/
NE PSDS https://cdn.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nebraska_ESSA_
Final.pdf
NH AP, FUN, MG, PSO, RES, SCHTECH, SI, https://www.education.nh.gov/essa/documents/consolidated-state-plan.pdf
SYSTECH, WREO
NJ PDPL, PSO, STUTECH https://www.state.nj.us/education/ESSA/plan/plan.pdf
NM STUTECH https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/information/essa-new-mexico/
NY STUTECH http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/essa/nys-essa-plan.pdf
NC PDPL, PPD http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/succeeds/nc-essa-state-plan-final.pdf
OK AP, FUN, SCHTECH https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/OK_consolidatedStateplan_
web.pdf
OR AP, PDPL https://www.oregon.gov/ode/rules-and-policies/essa/pages/default.aspx
PA FUN, RES, WREO https://www.education.pa.gov/K-12/ESSA/Pages/Consolidated-State-Plan.aspx
RI AP, FUN, SCHTECH, SI https://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Information-and-
Accountability-User-Friendly-Data/ESSA/RhodeIsland-ESSA-State-Plan-Final-
100119.pdf?ver=2019-10-01-153829-000
SC AP https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/
scconsolidatedstateplanfinal.pdf
SD AP https://doe.sd.gov/ESSA/
TN PPD https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/tncsa2017.pdf
UT FUN, PPD, RES https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/
utconsolidatedstateplanfinal.pdf
VT AP, PPD, SI https://education.vermont.gov/documents/essa-vermont-state-plan-final
WA FUN, SCHTECH, WREO https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/
waconsolidatedstateplan.pdf
WV AP, PDPL, PPD, SYSTECH https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/
wvconsolidatedstateplan.pdf
WI FUN, SCHTECH, SI https://dpi.wi.gov/esea/wisconsin-consolidated-state-plan
WY FUN, SCHTECH https://edu.wyoming.gov/downloads/accountability/ESSAClean.pdf
Note. AP ¼ alternate pathway; FUN ¼ funding; MG ¼ marginalized groups; PDPL ¼ professional development for providing PL
for students; PPD ¼ personalized professional development; PSDS ¼ partnership between schools/districts and stakeholders;
PSO ¼ partnership between state and organization; RES ¼ resources; SCHTECH ¼ technology for schools; SI ¼ school improve-
ment; STUTECH ¼ technology for students; SYSTECH ¼ technology for systems; WREO ¼ well-rounded educational opportun-
ity. The states of Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and the District of Columbia do not include references to personalized
learning in their ESSA plan.

content analysis showed 33 states had regulations (or guidance) wherein PL was mentioned. The
data yielded slightly different findings of the report from KnowledgeWorks (2018) that reported
PL in ESSA. This is most likely due to the research teams’ operationalized definition of PL. The
term PL is used throughout multiple facets of education. We created a conceptually clustered
matrix to present the emergent categories under (a) definitions of PL, (b) goals of PL for
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 259

students, (c) supports for PL, and (d) partnership for PL in order to provide a comprehensive
picture of the current state policies related to PL (see Figure 1). In this section, we discussed how
these themes are related to PL that were described in state ESSA plans. Further, descriptions of
potential ways to harness aspects of PL were provided.

Definitions of PL
PL is a term that is used frequently in schools, but without a shared understanding of the concept
or implementation processes (Herold, 2019). This statement is supported by the findings of this
study. There were varied definitions across the states which defined PL.
In total, four states (i.e., AK, NH, TN, WV) have given specific definitions of PL in their
ESSA plans. While Alaska and Tennessee used the 2016 NETP’s definition for PL as instruction,
the other two states defined PL as an educational structure (i.e., NH) and differentiated education
(i.e., WV), respectively. Nevertheless, all definitions highlighted that PL is to tailor instructional
approaches, content, or structure to learner needs and/or interests as well as support more stu-
dent-initiated, engaging, and authentic learning for all learners. Two states (i.e., NH, WV)
emphasized that PL creates flexibility in how students learn and demonstrate mastery of learning.
New Hampshire specifically highlighted UDL as a unifying framework for guiding instructional
designs that support the PL experiences for all learners. In addition, West Virginia specifically
identified high-quality instruction, targeted instruction, and intensive instruction as three compo-
nents of PL. The state also defined PL as a system designed to meet the needs of all students as
well as support collaborative decision-making process, innovative professional learning, and
shared accountability for student learning.

Goals of PL for students

The concept of providing PL to students emerged as a theme from the data. However, the idea of
providing PL to students was discussed in multiple ways. Many states viewed PL as a factor in
increasing access to well-rounded educational opportunities for all students, including historically
marginalized populations. In addition, some states regarded PL as an alternate vehicle to expand
academic options for students. Overarchingly, these states described PL as a process to lead to
school improvement, by either offering new supports to students or leveraging PL in existing edu-
cational initiatives. Specifically, the goals of PL for students include derived themes of (a) well-
rounded educational opportunity, (b) alternate pathway, (c) marginalized groups, and (d) school
improvement.

Well-rounded educational opportunity (WREO)

A total of six states (i.e., CA, GA, IL, NH, PA, WA) linked PL to well-rounded educational opportu-
nities. The notion of well-rounded students that are prepared to work 21st-century jobs is one of
the central tenets of ESSA, as indicated in Title IV, Part A. These states described PL as a means to
provide rigorous, competency-based learning while increasing access to curriculum. The state of
Illinois described PL as a means to go above learning standards and allow students to use this learn-
ing to increase sense of self. It is important to note that most often PL was paired with additional
concepts in relation to offering well-rounded educational opportunities. These concepts included
science and technology education, citizenship and civic engagement, and advanced coursework.

Alternate pathway (AP)

Multiple state plans suggested that PL can be used to create alternate pathways to skill attainment
and graduation (i.e., MD, NH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, VT, WV). The multiple pathway approach in
260 L. ZHANG ET AL.

Figure 1. Personalized learning related themes in ESSA plans.

regard to PL provides students the opportunity to access curriculum in varying ways. In addition,
states described personalized multiple pathways as a way to prepare students for post-secondary
education and/or the workforce. For example, states that mentioned alternate pathways provided
various options for graduation such as flexible credit options, planning their own educational
paths, and various courses aligned to students’ interests. The pathways mentioned here are not
similar to the traditional educational pathway, which usually offers pre-planned or pre-structured
learning environments. Alternate pathways, as described in these state plans, could be achieved
through providing personalized learning plans for students and online learning pathways.
For example, South Carolina began offering multiple pathways to all students in 2019. The
state of New Hampshire focused on competency-based learning through a personalized multiple
pathway system. The New Hampshire described that multiple pathways could provide opportuni-
ties for learning in novel situations and translating this learning to real world knowledge. The
state of Rhode Island described that personalized multiple pathways are critical to student and
family choice of educational attainment.
Multiple states plan on offering PL pathways through online learning courses (i.e., MI, OK,
OR). Through the Oregon Virtual School District (ORSVD), students will have access to courses
that are personalized to students’ various needs. For example, students attending rural schools
have limited options to personalize their learning due to the lack of access to courses. By provid-
ing flexibility in choosing options for the curriculum, the students in the areas could receive qual-
ity opportunities for PL experiences. The state of Oklahoma offers districts choice in how they
address credit recovery for students. This includes options and supports for online and PL. While
these states described the use of online learning to support PL, it is unclear if the online learning
platforms offer PL features.

Marginalized groups (MG)

Multiple states specifically mentioned that PL can benefit students from marginalized populations.
This is done through two means including descriptions of which populations PL can support and
inclusion of PL in other aspects of ESSA initiatives as in McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act and policies directed to support students from migratory families. For instance, the state of
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 261

Arizona placed a target of 70% of migratory students reporting that they are receiving personal-
ized instruction in the classroom by the 2016–2017 school year. New Hampshire stated that stu-
dents served under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act would receive PL
opportunities as part of the state’s commitment to providing a high-quality education to all stu-
dents. Finally, Pennsylvania stated that PL could provide equitable access to rigorous learning
that can prepare students for long term success.

School improvement (SI)

Multiple states positioned PL as a structure to lead to school improvement (i.e., NH, RI, VT,
WI). The state of Rhode Island established innovation grants that low performing schools could
access to develop and implement new approaches to deliver PL to students. These new
approaches could include increased access to alternative pathways, technological innovations, and
proficiency-based learning strategies. In addition, Rhode Island included language on school
reform which focused on providing student-centered PL to better prepare students for post-sec-
ondary education. The state of Vermont’s approach to school improvement included a team dedi-
cated to supporting districts to increase PL throughout the state. The state of Wisconsin
supported interventions based on school improvement plans for PL. New Hampshire backed
LEA’s in determining which schools benefit from increasing access to PL for students. This
included support in creating student-centered plans, competency-based learning tied to learning
goals, and careful monitoring of student progress toward goals.

Supports for PL
As the importance of PL in education has increased, ESSA requires appropriate supports to
implement PL. Various sectors related to PL were interwoven to support the implementation of
PL. Major themes derived from the analysis regarding supports for PL are (a) professional devel-
opment (PD) related to PL, (b) funding, (c) technology, and (d) resources.

Professional development related to PL

Several state ESSA plans addressed how they would plan PD related to PL. PL-related PD were
described in two different ways: (a) PD for providing PL for students and (b) personalized PD.
The major difference between the two themes is the target group of PL. PD for providing PL for
students is more focused on improving teachers’ competency to implement PL. On the other
hand, personalized PD is more focused on how to personalize PD for teachers.

Professional development for providing PL for students (PDPL)

Teachers have to be equipped with appropriate knowledge and training in order to implement PL
in practice. A total of five states (i.e., AZ, NC, NJ, OR, WV) planned to provide PD in imple-
menting PL for students. Additionally, “capacity,” “resources,” and “supports” were used to
address state efforts. The state of West Virginia referred to various resources and supports for
teachers which enable them to focus on PL for all students including students with disabilities.
Arizona, New Jersey, and Oregon connected the use of technology to the content of PD
regarding providing PL for students. Utilizing technology-related tools was suggested as a means
to effectively implement PL for all learners including students with disabilities. For example, the
state of New Jersey designed a plan for PD to provide student PL opportunities with research-
based instructional strategies and effective use of technology. More training opportunities would
262 L. ZHANG ET AL.

be provided for teachers to support understanding of the use of real-time, effective feedback and
digital PL tools that facilitate the implementation of PL in practice.
Additionally, PL consists of many factors that must be in place to optimize the potential bene-
fit to students and teachers. This holds true at the school level as well. While states need PD and
resources to support personalized student learning, they also require that schools and districts
have systems in place to deliver this model of learning. In some cases, states have already started
the process of building necessary support to increase access to PL. For others, state ESSA plans
contained language on how to build the necessary support to deliver PL to students, teachers,
and administrators.

Personalized professional development (PPD)

In total, twelve states (i.e., AK, AL, AR, DE, GA, MD, NC, OR, TN, UT, VT, WV) included guid-
ance on how they would develop and operate their own personalized PD practices in their ESSA
plans. For example, Alabama and Maryland highlighted their efforts to provide funding and sup-
port for personalized PD. Maryland illustrated that the state would support LEAs to provide job-
embedded and personalized PD for administrators to address student needs based on data.
Further, among the guidance on providing personalized PD emerged two main sub-themes: (a)
technology (including tools) and (b) micro-credentials.
Technology and tools were described as meaningful vehicles to operate personalized PD.
Seven states (i.e., AK, GA, NC, OR, TN, UT, WV) designed their plans to develop and improve
online platforms for PD. For example, the state of Georgia introduced toolkits, online PD, and
data from an electronic platform to improve personalized PD. Georgia would develop toolkits
for LEAs consisting of program components to provide personalized, evidence-based PD oppor-
tunities for teachers to improve self-efficacy, knowledge, and skills. Online personalized PD
opportunities would be available for teachers based on their choices or assignments by evalua-
tors through a performance management and PD platform. Also, the statewide data of teacher
and leader effectiveness from an electronic platform would be utilized for personalized PD.
According to the Oregon Digital Learning/Education Technology Plan, Oregon would guide
districts and schools to utilize personalized PD to prepare teachers to effectively support
learning in a digital age. Oregon emphasized the importance of establishing personalized, job-
embedded PD opportunities for teachers. The state of Tennessee developed an online teacher
data management system (i.e., TNCompass) to help gather information regarding educator
licensure, evaluation, and eventually, personalized learning opportunities. Additionally,
Tennessee launched a virtual hybrid academy pilot for school leaders to engage in personalized
online learning.
In terms of technology, micro-credentials are mentioned as a means to deliver meaningful PD
in ESSA. Micro-credentials are competency-based, personalized, on-demand, and shareable learn-
ing design PD for educators (Crow & Pipkin, 2017). This kind of personalized PD affords teacher’
access to specific, unique knowledge and skills that can inform the teacher’s practices. The term
micro-credential was mentioned in three state ESSA plans (i.e., AR, DE, TN). These states
described micro-credential as a competency-based, PL tool that meets the teachers’ specific needs
in their own contexts. These states noted that micro-credentials have the potential to lead to
teacher retention. For example, Arkansas highlighted the importance of micro-credentials as a
quality means for personalized PD. By earning micro-credentials, teachers could improve their
skill set which leads to increased effectiveness and retention of excellent teachers. Delaware
pointed out the importance of micro-credentials in terms of supporting excellent teachers and
provided a definition of micro-credential. Delaware introduced micro-credentials as an emerging
learning design that meets teachers’ context-related (e.g., student, classroom, school) PD needs.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 263

As micro-credentials are personalized and based on teachers’ demands (e.g., time), teachers may
be more motivated in developing their discrete skills.

Funding (FUN)
In total, 10 states (i.e., MN, NH, OK, OR, PA, RI, UT, WA, WI, WY) described how funding
could be used to support PL for students. Largely, funding is provided to the states as part of
grant funding through allocations of money that have been set aside for the direct purpose of
financing district level PL initiatives. The language from the state ESSA plans described that fund-
ing needs to support PL in multiple ways. Where technology is crucial to the success of PL, states
also noted a need for funding to support the development of additional resources as well as per-
sonnel that are critical to implementing and maintaining PL in schools. Therefore, we categorized
and reported on technology and resources as different supports for PL implementation that are
separated from funding in the following section.

Technology
Technology is a critical element in implementing PL. The research team found three major
themes related to technology: (a) technology for students, (b) technology for schools, and (c)
technology for systems. Each theme targeted different goals related to providing access
to technology.

Technology for students (STUTECH)

Technology is at the center of personalization in some state ESSA plans. Multiple states wrote of
the need to use technology to provide PL to students and their willingness to support PL as a
statewide initiative (i.e., IA, IN, MI, NJ, NM, NY). The state of Indiana began this work by con-
ducting a needs analysis. This analysis focused solely on PL; however, PL is featured as a means
to create healthy and safe school environment. This includes access to tools that support person-
alized systems, and analysis of data to drive educational decision making.
The state of Michigan’s ESSA plan expressed a need to create greater access to digital learning
material and software that support PL and pathways for students who live in rural areas or in
low income. The state of New Mexico highlighted the need to increase the use of technology
designed according to the principles of UDL to support the learning needs of all students, which
conforms to ESSA’s emphasis on UDL-aligned technology. The state of New Jersey planned to
make use of tools that inform assessment, and software to support PL. In addition, New Jersey
described the importance of data in the ability to offer PL to students. More specifically, that data
can be captured in real time, allowing teachers to make decisions quickly in regard to learning
that is occurring in the classroom. Massachusetts planned to support schools in using real time
data to drive competency-based instruction for students. In addition, Massachusetts planned to
support previous initiatives to generate even greater access to technology and PL.

Technology for schools (SCHTECH)

State level grants are the main driver of funding for PL in schools. While the grant monies avail-
able are significant, states, for the most part, have allocated percentages of total monies available
to PL (i.e., MN, NH, OK, OR, RI, WA, WI, WY). In the state of Minnesota, LEA’s that receive
grant money would be required to use a portion of these dollars on supporting well-rounded PL
for students. In New Hampshire, 4% of total state enrichment grants have been allocated for
264 L. ZHANG ET AL.

increasing access PL for students. Oklahoma has allocated 20% of competitive grant monies to
increasing PL experiences for students with a cap of a total of 25% that can be spent on technol-
ogy, including devices, and data to support PL. All three of the above-mentioned states focused
on technology spending to support PL.
Of the 10 states that include language on funding to support PL, eight states specifically men-
tioned technology. For instance, Oregon noted that funding can be used for technology that
increases access to PL and rigorous learning experiences. Rhode Island described that funds can
be used for technology to support PL, but went further to include that funding can be used to
support meaningful data that supports PL, strategies for delivering coursework, learning environ-
ments, and capacity and infrastructure. Finally, Wyoming continued the theme of using funds to
increase access to PL for students, but in addition introduced the idea of using funds to create
real time data systems to support teacher knowledge of student performance in the classroom.

Technology for systems (SYSTECH)

Four states (i.e., CO, NH, WI, WV) launched initiatives or planned to build systems, such as
technological infrastructure and state-wide data system, to support the implementation of PL. For
example, the state of Colorado noted the need to increase access to internet for rural and remote
schools throughout the state. Colorado described access to the internet as the backbone of PL
and unreliable access to the internet limits the digital resources and curriculum that students
need for PL. Where internet infrastructure is critical to supporting PL across the United States,
so too are the systems that states put in place to deliver, support, and maintain PL. The systems
needed to provide PL are vast. The state of New Hampshire focused on the state accountability
system as a means to collect and analyze assessment data that, in turn, would lead to improved
understandings of how to deliver PL. The state of West Virginia planned to use formative assess-
ment data in an accountability system to determine capacity for proving PL to all students. The
state of Wisconsin’s Effective Educators system is designed to be student centered. This approach
is based on a continuous improvement mindset which affords data on differentiated instruction
in varying classroom environments.

Resources (RES)
Technology will be integral to the success of any state’s push to provide PL to students. However,
ancillary supports will be needed to ensure that teachers, administrators and students have the
tools and resources needed to engage in PL. Three states (i.e., NH, PA, UT) mentioned PL as
resources in their plans. The state of Pennsylvania described that resources, including funding,
would be made available to provide PL to all students. The state of New Hampshire noted fund-
ing for several resources that can increase access to PL for students. Districts can use funding
from the state to support PL with robotics and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) related materials and other digital tools and technologies. New Hampshire went
further by discussing the importance of collaboration by teachers, including teachers and after
school personnel that may support PL through ongoing support such as tutoring. The state of
Utah included language that emphasizes collaboration as key to providing PL by expanding upon
existing personnel and programs to provide a well-rounded education.

Partnership for PL
According to the state ESSA plans, PL could be facilitated from partnerships of various stakehold-
ers such as research-based organizations, districts, and schools. Five states’ (i.e., AK, NE, NH, NJ,
TN) ESSA plans included language in relation to building partnership that benefits the
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 265

implementation of PL. Partnerships described in these plans include (a) partnership between state
and organization and (b) partnership between schools/districts and stakeholders.

Partnership between state and organization (PSO)

New Hampshire and New Jersey planned to develop partnership with research-based organiza-
tions. For example, New Hampshire characterized that they would develop a partnership with an
organization having varied expertise in improving the state’s capacity to identify problems in
practice and assisting the state to use data to access knowledge including evidence-based practices
for PL. Their efforts to support partners provide personalized PD focused on opportunities
(e.g., options, resources, and information) to serve students with diverse needs (e.g., students with
disabilities, students with low achievement on literacy or math, English Language Learners
[ELLs], gifted and talented students). Additionally, New Jersey School Boards Association has
built a partnership with New Jersey Institute of Technology under the name of Future Ready
Schools to plan and implement personalized digital learning strategies by integrating technology
into the curriculum.

Partnership between schools/districts and stakeholders (PSDS)

The state of Nebraska highlighted the importance of partnership among schools/districts and stu-
dents in supporting student engagement. The state planned to support schools/districts to imple-
ment practices including individualized or PL plans for students, parents/guardians, and
community engagement to improve students’ educational experiences and opportunities. In add-
ition, the state of Tennessee described an in-school partnership of a personalized PD approach in
the Instructional Partnership Initiative (IPI). Tennessee envisioned that this approach could lever-
age existing expertise within schools in terms of supporting teachers to improve their work.
Moreover, the Alaska department of education expected that Alaska districts’ initiatives on PL
would benefit student learning, the best practices from which could be shared with
other districts.

Discussion
The results from this study showed that although currently PL was widely referenced in the state
ESSA plans, most states are still in the early stages of implementing PL as a statewide initiative.
The emergent themes identified from the state policies such as enhancing both students and
teachers’ use of technology as well as providing teachers with more job-embedded, personalized
PD conform to ESSA’s emphasis on improving LEAs’ technological infrastructure and teachers’
technology capacity as key drivers of PL. With the exception of a funding structure that supports
more detailed considerations of increasing student access to PL, ESSA did not provide specific
guidance on or approaches to implement PL. The lack of specific requirements or guidance from
the federal law presents both challenges and opportunities for the advancement of PL. In this sec-
tion, we discussed several issues emerging from the results and offered implications for future
policy implementation.

Lack of shared understandings of PL implementation

Because PL is broadly conceptualized as a means to promote learning for all students, no single
congruent definition of PL has emerged from state policies. Overall, the PL definitions identi-
fied from the four state policies (i.e., AK, NH, TN, WV) were aligned to the definitions given
in organization documents and research reports, highlighting tailoring learning to individual
learners. In addition to the PL definitions, our analysis suggests that the goal of PL is to
266 L. ZHANG ET AL.

provide a well-rounded education for all learners including students from marginalized groups,
create alternative pathways to skill attainment and graduation, as well as push for school-wide
improvement. Nevertheless, there was no consensus on approach to operationalize PL or how
to move forward with the innovation. Our findings indicate that the emergent policies to
advance PL diverged on states’ foci on varying factors. To address the inconsistency in opera-
tionalizing PL, researchers suggested that it would be beneficial to develop a basic set of guide-
lines through a collaborative process that integrates perspectives from different stakeholders
(Zhang et al., in press). This work may start with identifying a unifying framework that can
guide the process of constructing basic considerations for implementing PL as a classroom,
school, or state-level initiative.
Currently, several educational frameworks or instructional models have emerged as related
to the operationalization of PL from the state policies and research reports. As reported above,
New Hampshire has taken a comprehensive approach to advance PL within the framework of
UDL, laying a solid policy foundation for schools across the state to integrate UDL into its
statewide initiative for PL. Tennessee launched the PL Task Force that focuses on promoting
blended learning models, predictive analytics, micro-credentialing, and competency-based edu-
cation as a broad framework for operationalizing PL. These initiatives are designed to support
districts in exploring flexible learning environments that afford the implementation of PL, tech-
nology that has power to operationalize and scale up PL, new approaches to professional learn-
ing for teachers, and innovative educational structure that allows for flexibility in how students
learn and demonstrate mastery. Similarly, North Carolina identified learner profile, individual-
ized learning paths, competency-based progression, and flexible learning environments as four
pillars of PL.
Meanwhile, previous research has already introduced UDL (e.g., Basham et al., 2016), online
and blended learning models (e.g., Bingham, 2017), and the four aforementioned pillars (e.g.,
Pane, Steiner, Baird, Hamilton, & Pane, 2017) as potential frameworks for operationalizing PL. It
is important to note that most of these studies are descriptive or exploratory by design. In this
regard, more research is needed to investigate whether and how these instructional models can
generate transformative changes to student learning experiences and outcomes. It is also antici-
pated that implementation challenges and problems would emerge given that these educational
frameworks themselves are viewed as broad, flexible, and complex concepts, needing more
research to determine the effective implementation practices (see Basham, Blackorby, Stahl, &
Zhang, 2018; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013).
To some extent, the emergent policies or guidance on how to support PL are aligned to the
current research efforts. For example, as technology emerged as a key to operationalizing PL in
ESSA and state plans, it is also a focus of the current research effort in PL. Researchers in the
field have focused on investigating whether and how advanced technologies (e.g., adaptive tech-
nologies, ubiquitous learning systems) could enhance student learning outcomes (see Arroyo
et al., 2014; Looi et al., 2009; Walkington, 2013). This focus also gives rise to a potential tension
between using technology to automatically customize learning content for learners and promoting
learner agency over learning (Dishon, 2017; Robinson & Sebba, 2010). Instead, researchers sug-
gested that enhancing learner ownership of technologies, especially by promoting the effective use
of technology in learner-led or learner-influenced activities, serves as a more powerful driving
force for PL (Robinson & Sebba, 2010). Additionally, accumulated research has documented goal
setting (e.g., DeMink-Carthew, Olofson, LeGeros, Netcoh, & Hennessey, 2017), self-regulation
(e.g., Basham et al., 2016; Chen, 2008), and choice making (e.g., Netcoh, 2017) as various
approaches (either with or without the support of technology) to promote learner autonomy or
agency. However, the concept of promoting learner agency and associated guidance are less
focused in the state ESSA plans.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 267

Empowering All learners in a PL system

Given the premise of PL is to support optimal learning experiences for all learners, learners
including students with disabilities and other students from historically marginalized groups
should be at the center of any PL system (Basham et al., 2016; Jones & Casey, 2015). However,
ESSA does not provide specific guidance on how to ensure the efforts made to improve student
access to PL address the needs of all students including students with disabilities and other learn-
ers from marginalized groups. At the state level, only a few state ESSA plans (e.g., AZ, CO, MD,
NH, VT) have referenced PL as a means to increase access to more equitable education for stu-
dents with disabilities, geographical barriers (e.g., students in rural areas), migratory children, and
students identified as being homeless. Other than these macro-level references to diverse learners,
few states have outlined what learner characteristics (e.g., interest, motivation, personal goal, cog-
nitive ability, behavior, cultural background) would be addressed when implementing PL. As
such, few states provided guidance on establishing instructional and technological infrastructures
to support varying learner characteristics.
As most states are in the early stage of enacting policies or launching initiatives to move PL
forward, it raises both challenges and opportunities for policymakers, researchers, and practi-
tioners to promote PL toward an inclusive, integrated, and student-centered learning system.
Challenges exist and may emerge when traditionally standardized education policies and practices
leave little room for effectively adopting PL models which require more flexibility in student
learning, instructional practices, curriculum, assessment system, and pathways to college and car-
eer. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm for PL across the nation may help build momentum to re-envi-
sion how education can meet the diverse needs of all students in an integrated system as opposed
to a system that intentionally or unintendedly excludes students with diverse needs such as stu-
dents with disabilities, migratory students, low-income students, and ELLs from general education
settings. It is thus important to establish the vision for PL that includes all students and support
their development and learning based on their needs, strengths, and interests from the beginning
of any initiative or program as envisioned in the federal and state policies.

Integrated system that involves all stakeholders in operationalizing PL

Establishing an education system that is meant to support all students to have access to optimal,
PL experiences is highly complex. The passage of ESSA has opened opportunities for policy-
makers, researchers, and practitioners to make more efforts to create 21st-century learning envi-
ronments or well-rounded education opportunities that support students’ optimal learning
experiences. Our analysis of state ESSA plans reveals that a few states have embraced opportuni-
ties and put some guidance or structure in place to support LEAs in establishing robust techno-
logical infrastructure, competency-based learning system, micro-credential, college and career
readiness, and other guidance that hold the potential to advance PL.
These findings, to a certain extent, align to the previous scan of promising state policies that
might support PL (Patrick et al., 2016b). In their report, Patrick et al. (2016b) identified rethink-
ing accountability for continuous improvement, redesigning systems of assessments, building edu-
cator and leader capacity for supporting student-centered learning, creating competency-based
education systems, and building new learning models infrastructure as promising policy
approaches to advance PL. Nevertheless, our findings also show that while many states have
enacted policies to promote PL, the means by which they address PL is often fragmented and
siloed at student or teacher level, or in building the capacity through systems to support PL.
For PL to be implemented effectively, state policies should address the issues of design and
implementation regarding how to personalize PL to support varying learner characteristics, pro-
viding supports for implementing PL, and building effective partnership for developing and
268 L. ZHANG ET AL.

sustaining PL within an integrated, coordinated system. For instance, our results indicate that
states, by and large, have written policies that address one of the aforementioned issues regarding,
among other things, technology, PD, funding, resources, and assessment system. An example of
this is that states emphasize providing personalized PD is a crucial aspect of PL, but many states
do not address how this PD will impact PL at the student level. Because personalized PD, espe-
cially through micro-credentialing, is also an emergent innovation for teacher education and
development, research on its effectiveness on teaching learning and, in turn, on student learning
is lacking.
Under the current policy context, it is important for states and LEAs to consider how to get
students, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders actively involved in decision-making
processes that support the operationalization of PL. It is vital to establish an integrated system of
policies and supports, rather than disaggregated adoption of policies, for PL to develop, thrive,
and scale up in a way that fits within each state’s education system and schools’ unique context
(Patrick et al., 2016a).

An emergent definition of PL and considerations for operationalization

After the passage of ESSA and state ESSA plans, it is likely that PL would continue to draw atten-
tion and interest from educational agencies, technology sectors, and industries to advance the
implementation of PL. Findings of the present study reveals a lack of a congruent, comprehensive
definition of PL and a great variability in operationalized components of the innovation across
state ESSA plans. As indicated above, to advance policy implementation, research, and practice in
PL, the field will benefit from a unifying understanding of the crucial components of PL and how
PL can be operationalized as effective research-based models or practices for supporting learning
for all learners. In this study, we initiated an effort to provide an emergent definition and key
operationalized components of PL for students.
Our definition encompasses salient features present in commonly adopted definitions of PL in
policy documents, organization papers, and research reports (e.g., Basham et al., 2015; Pane et al.,
2015, 2017; Patrick et al., 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2017; Walkington & Bernacki,
2018) as well as emergent themes from state ESSA plans. The commonalities across the widely
cited PL definitions include tailoring instruction to individual learners and promoting learner
control or autonomy over learning experiences. Emerging from our analysis of state ESSA plans,
PL was envisioned as a means, through the effective use of technology, to provide well-rounded
education and improve school improvement. Therefore, we integrated three essential components
(i.e., tailoring instruction, learner autonomy, use of technology) into our definition. Specifically,
the emergent definition and key components are given as follows:
Personalized learning is a systematic learning design which focuses on tailoring instruction to individual
students’ strengths, preferences, needs, and goals that leads to well-rounded educational experiences
including increased access to disciplines and 21st-century work skills. Personalized learning provides
flexibility and supports in what, how, when, and where students learn and demonstrate mastery of learning.
Specifically, these flexibilities and supports are designed in instructional approaches, content, activities,
learning objectives and outcomes, pace of learning, and alternative pathways toward college and career. In
addition, personalized learning enables student voice and choice based upon their interest, prior learning,
and affords students opportunities to influence their learning path. Personalized learning systems often
leverage technology to enhance access to quality learning experiences for all learners, support educators in
effective implementation practices, and strengthen school-level technological infrastructure (e.g., digital
platform, online data system).

This relatively comprehensive definition of PL provides multiple considerations for advancing

statewide implementation efforts in PL. We highlighted in our definition the innovative and
inclusive facet of PL, which is to promote student access to 21st-century education opportunities
for all learners. Given the novelty of PL, states have not received the guidance or had access to
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 269

resources to sufficiently or explicitly define PL fits in each state vision for ESSA. This calls for
future policy and research to address the gap between the premise of PL and state ESSA imple-
mentation efforts. In addition, most state policies related to PL are focused on providing financial
supports such as technology and PD to improve student access to PL experiences or strengthen
implementation capacity to put PL into practice. As research emerges, states will have access to a
better understanding for promoting comprehensive, complex designs of PL for all learners.
Drawing upon the current conceptualizations of PL and state implementation efforts, we pro-
ceed to offer several considerations to further inform the operationalization of PL. First, PL can
be operationalized in flexible learning environments in either face-to-face, blended, or online
learning formats. The implementation of PL should be centered around supporting learner vari-
ability in terms of interests, preferences, prior knowledge and skills, strengths, and needs. One
potential area for further policy implementation and research is UDL. The framework of UDL
can serve as an instructional framework to guide the design of PL environments by proactively
building in flexibility in instruction and iteratively removing barriers to learning to support
learner variability (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). When designing PL environments, information
regarding each learner should be easily accessible and understandable to both teachers and stu-
dents. To inform personal learning paths for all learners, PL utilizes digital systems or platforms
to collect timely, actionable data on student learning, achievement, and/or feedback.
In addition, instructional technologies such as adaptive learning systems, intelligent tutoring
systems, mobile learning devices can help implement PL with respect to providing accessible,
interactive, and adaptive resources, content, or materials that promote learning experiences and
enabling more student choices in how they demonstrate mastery of learning. As PL is a complex
learning design, districts and schools allocate resources and supports including opportunities for
PD, instructional tools and materials, and assessments in new ways to support personal growth of
each learner and allow them progress based on competency and proficiency.
From our data, PL is also viewed as an innovative design that allows for competency-based,
job-embedded professional learning and development to meet educators’ development needs,
interests, and instructional goals. Access to PL for educators is often operationalized through the
provision of micro-credentials for educators to engage in flexible online learning activities, pro-
gress based on competency and proficiency, as well as develop their discrete instructional know-
ledge and skills closely related to the need to improve instruction in their classrooms. Future
research is needed to determine the intersection between PL for all stakeholder groups including
students, teachers, and administrators.

Implications for future policy implementation

This policy analysis helps inform the field of how state policies operationalize PL, provide guid-
ance, and indicate areas for future policy implementation. As complex as it was reflected by the
broadness and interreliance of key components of PL, the implementation of PL benefits from a
supporting policy system. Our analyses suggested the need for policies that support a robust
funding structure to effectively and efficiently leverage resources and supports that can be used to
enhance technological infrastructure, innovate assessment systems, improve instructional leader-
ship and practice, as well as build partnership.
In particular, ESSA has granted states more autonomy in building accountability systems as
well as defining student success and school quality. The increased autonomy allows state policy-
makers and local leaders to consider establishing an innovative assessment system that balances
flexibility and accountability to promote each learner’s needs, strengths, and interests while pro-
moting learner agency and ensuring high expectations for all students. In addition, to preparing
educators for the implementation of PL, policymakers and local leaders should consider ways to
innovate teacher preparation and PD programs that are designed to improve implementation,
270 L. ZHANG ET AL.

problem-solving, and collaboration skills of general and special educators, administrators,

librarians, and other school staff. To this point, multiple states mentioned investment in micro-
credentials to support ongoing, authentic, and relevant PD for teachers. An analysis of how
micro-credentials can support PD is beyond the scope of this article. However, states could bene-
fit from a greater understanding of how micro-credentials are currently being used by early
adopters in the field of education and beyond.
To conclude, our findings recognize that there are a variety of issues that need to be addressed
to achieve the premise of PL to support equitable learning for all learners. Potential or early
adopters of PL could look to states such as New Hampshire, Oregon, and Tennessee, all of which
have established relatively comprehensive state policies to support the statewide implementation
of PL strategies at the goals of PL for students, supports for PL, and partnership for PL.

Limitations
This study focused on language related to PL contained with state ESSA plans. All plans reviewed
were finalized and approved. While the research team reviewed all finalized plans, the researchers
acknowledge that states may be exploring, piloting, or implementing PL projects that are not ref-
erenced or described in the finalized state ESSA plan. For the purpose of investigating how a new
national law impacts state policy, only ESSA plans were analyzed. The researchers are confident
that if a review of state projects occurred, many more states would be included as adopters of PL.
In addition, it is important to note that some states discussed PL in their ESSA plans, but
reported findings from internal studies. These data were not included in this analysis. Another
limitation is the ever-evolving definition of PL and how states interpret the concept. Readers of
this article will note that PL is discussed in relation to many aspects of learning and diverse
learning populations. It is clear that the field of education will benefit from shared understand-
ings of PL moving forward.

Conclusion
While PL has the potential to improve the outcomes of all students, much work still needs to
occur to bring these benefits to fruition. The references to PL in current federal and state educa-
tion policies may create momentum for further implementation of and investigation on PL. Our
analysis of state ESSA plans in this study provides basic understandings of emergent state policies
for advancing the implementation of PL across many states. However, most states have yet estab-
lished a comprehensive policy system that guides the implementation of PL as a statewide initia-
tive. States may continue to develop and revise guidance and regulations regarding PL. Therefore,
it is imperative that the development and revision processes must be informed by more evidence
that would accumulate in future investigation on effective models for implementing PL.

Note
1. UDL is defined as a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that provides flexibility
in instruction, appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges as well as maintains high
achievement expectations for all students.

Notes on contributors
Ling Zhang is a Doctoral Candidate in the Instructional Design, Technology, and Innovation specialization in the
Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas. Her research is focused on the adoption of innova-
tive instructional practices, personalized learning, and implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
that supports learner variability in modern learning environments.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 271

Sohyun Yang is a doctoral student in the Instructional Design, Technology, and Innovation specialization in the
Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas. Her research focus includes embedding Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) in teacher education and transition of students with severe/multiple disabilities.

Richard Allen Carter, Jr. is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Counseling,
Leadership, Advocacy, and Design at the University of Wyoming. His research focuses on levering technology to
support learner variability in modern learning environments through Personalized Learning, Self-Regulated
Learning, and Design.

References
Abbott, J., Basham, J., Nordmark, S., Schneiderman, M., Umpstead, B., Walter, K., & Wolf, M. A. (2015).
Technology-enabled personalized learning: Findings & recommendations to accelerate implementation.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/qKmLZR
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burelson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia adaptive tutoring sys-
tem for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 387–426. doi:10.1007/s40593-014-0023-y
Basham, J.D., Blackorby, J., Stahl, S., & Zhang, L. (2018). Universal design for learning: Because students are (the)
variable. In K. Kennedy & R.E. Ferdig (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (2nd
ed., pp. 477–507). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Carter, R. A., & Stahl, W. M. (2016). An operationalized understanding of personalized
learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 126–136. doi:10.1177/0162643416660835
Basham, J. D., Stahl, S., Ortiz, K., Rice, M. F., & Smith, S. (2015). Equity matters: Digital & online learning for stu-
dents with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities.
Bernacki, M. L., & Walkington, C. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 110(6), 864–881. doi:10.1037/edu0000250
Bingham, A. J. (2017). Personalized learning in high technology charter schools. Journal of Educational Change,
18(4), 521–549. doi:10.1007/s10833-017-9305-0
Bingham, A. J., Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2018). Ahead of the curve: Implementation challenges
in personalized learning school models. Educational Policy, 32(3), 454–489. doi:10.1177/0895904816637688
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cakir, O., & Simsek, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of the effects of computer and paper-based personalization
on student achievement. Computers & Education, 55, 1524–1531. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.018
Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities. (2016). Equity matters: Digital & online learning for stu-
dents with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Author.
Chen, C. M. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers &
Education, 51, 787–814. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.004
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of con-
textualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.88.4.715
Crow, T., & Pipkin, H. (2017). Micro-credentials for impact: Holding professional learning to high standards.
Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Retrieved from ttps://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/micro-
credentials-for-impact.pdf
DeMink-Carthew, J., Olofson, M. W., LeGeros, L., Netcoh, S., & Hennessey, S. (2017). An analysis of approaches
to goal setting in middle grades personalized learning environments. RMLE Online, 40(10), 1–11. doi:10.1080/
19404476.2017.1392689
Dishon, G. (2017). New data, old tensions: Big data, personalized learning, and the challenges of progressive educa-
tion. Theory and Research in Education, 15(3), 272–289. doi:10.1177/1477878517735233
Evans, M., & Boucher, A. R. (2015). Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster
motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 87–91. doi:10.1111/mbe.12073
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. §, 6301 (2015).
FitzGerald, E., Jones, A., Kucirkova, N., & Scanlon, E. (2018). A literature synthesis of personalised technology-
enhanced learning: what works and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26. doi:10.25304/rlt.v26.2095
Hauerwas, L. B., Brown, R., & Scott, A. N. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-
level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 101–120. doi:10.1177/001440291308000105
Herold, B. (2019, February 20). What does personalized learning mean? Whatever people want it to. Retrieved
from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/11/07/what-does-personalized-learning-mean-whatever-people.
html
272 L. ZHANG ET AL.

Herzog, C., Handke, C., & Hitters, E. (2019). Analyzing talk and text II: Thematic analysis. In Van den Bulck, H.,
Puppis, M., Donders, K. & Van Audenhove, L. (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy
research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Høgheim, S., & Reber, R. (2015). Supporting interest of middle school students in mathematics through context
personalization and example choice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2015.03.006
Iver, M. A. M. (2011). The challenge of improving urban high school graduation outcomes: Findings from a
randomized study of dropout prevention efforts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 167–184.
doi:10.1080/10824669.2011.584497
Jones, L. E., & Casey, M. C. (2015). Personalized learning: Policy & practice recommendations for meeting the
needs of students with disabilities. Retrieved from National Center for Learning Disabilities website: https://goo.
gl/Lq7tuf
KnowledgeWorks. (2018). Personalized earning and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from https://knowl-
edgeworks.org/resources/personalized-learning-every-student-succeeds-act/
Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., So, H. J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., … Soloway, E. (2009). Anatomy of a mobilized
lesson: Learning my way. Computers & Education, 53, 1120–1132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.021
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: a meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. Retrieved from: http://www.tcrecord.
org.www2.lib.ku.edu/library/content.asp?contentid=16882.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA:
CAST Professional Publishing.
N.Y.C. Department of Education. (2011). iZone: Innovate NYC school. Retrieved from http://izonenyc.org/initia-
tives/innovate-nyc-schools/
Netcoh, S. (2017). Balancing freedom and limitations: A case study of choice provision in a personalized learning
class. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 383–392. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.010
Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M., Hamilton, L. S., & Pane, J. D. (2017). Informing progress: Insights on person-
alized learning implementation and effects. Retrieved from RAND Corporation website: https://www.rand.org/
pubs/research_reports/RR2042.html
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related out-
comes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.
2.270
Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean What You Say: Defining and integrating personalized, blended
and competency education. Vienna, VA: iNACOL. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/resource/mean-what-
you-say-defining-andintegrating-personalized-blended-and-competency-education/
Patrick, S., Worthen, M., Frost, D., & Gentz, S. (2016a). Promising state policies for personalized learning. Vienna,
VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL).
Patrick, S., Worthen, M., Frost, D., & Gentz, S. (2016b). Meeting the Every Student Succeeds Act’s promise: State
policy to support personalized learning. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning
(iNACOL).
Robinson, C., & Sebba, J. (2010). Personalising learning through the use of technology. Computers & Education,
54, 767–775. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.021
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the
role of technology in education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of State Support. (2015).
Fundamental change: Innovation in America’s schools under race to the top. Washington, DC.
Walkington, C. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The
impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4),
932–945. doi:10.1037/a0031882
Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2018). Personalization of instruction: Design dimensions and implications for
cognition. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 50–68. doi:10.1080/00220973.2017.1380590
Zhang, L., Basham, D. J., & Yang, S. (in press). Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A
research synthesis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 273

Appendix

Table A. References of personalized learning in ESSA.

Personalized learning for students
TITLE I—IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED
SEC. 1003A. [20 U.S.C. 6303b] DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES.
(c) LOCAL USE OF FUNDS.—A local educational agency receiving an award under this section—
(3) shall use the remainder of the award to pay the costs associated with one or more of the following direct student
services—
(D) components of a personalized learning approach, which may include high-quality academic tutoring; and—
TITLE IV—21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS
SEC. 4102. [20 U.S.C. 7112] DEFINITIONS.
In this subpart:
(3) DIGITAL LEARNING.—The term ‘‘digital learning’’ means any instructional practice that effectively uses technology to
strengthen a student’s learning experience and encompasses a wide spectrum of tools and practices, including—
(C) the use of data and information to personalize learning and provide targeted supplementary instruction;

SEC. 4104. [20 U.S.C. 7114] STATE USE OF FUNDS.

(b) STATE ACTIVITIES.—Each State that receives an allotment under section 4103 shall use the funds available under
subsection (a)(3) for activities and programs designed to meet the purposes of this subpart, which may include—

(3) supporting local educational agencies in providing programs and activities that—
(C) increase access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences supported by technology by—
(i) providing technical assistance to local educational agencies to improve the ability of local educational agencies to—
(I) identify and address technology readiness needs, including the types of technology infrastructure and access
available to the students served by the local educational agency, including computer devices, access to school libraries, Internet
connectivity, operating systems, software, related network infrastructure, and data security;

(II) use technology, consistent with the principles of universal design for learning, to support the learning needs of
all students, including children with disabilities and English learners; and

(III) build capacity for principals, other school leaders, and local educational agency administrators to support
teachers in using data and technology to improve instruction and personalize learning;

SEC. 4106. [20 U.S.C. 7116] LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY APPLICATIONS.

(d) NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and prior to receiving an allocation under this subpart, a local
educational agency or consortium of such agencies shall conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of the local educational
agency or agencies proposed to be served under this subpart in order to examine needs for improvement of—
(C) access to personalized learning experiences supported by technology and professional development for the
effective use of data and technology.

SEC. 4109. [20 U.S.C. 7119] ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY.
(a) USES OF FUNDS.—Subject to section 4106(f), each local educational agency, or consortium of such agencies, that receives an
allocation under section 4015(a) shall use a portion of such funds to improve the use of technology to improve the academic
achievement, academic growth, and digital literacy of all students, including by meeting the needs of such agency or consortium
that are identified in the needs assessment conducted under section 4106(d) (if applicable), which may include—
(1) providing educators, school leaders, and administrators with the professional learning tools, devices, content, and
resources to—
(A) personalize learning to improve student academic achievement;
(B) discover, adapt, and share relevant high-quality educational resources;
(C) use technology effectively in the classroom, including by administering computer-based assessments and blended
learning strategies; and
(D) implement and support school- and district-wide approaches for using technology to inform instruction, support
teacher collaboration, and personalize learning;

Personalized Learning for Educator—Personalized PD

TITLE II—PREPARING, TRAINING, AND RECRUITING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS,
PRINCIPALS, AND OTHER SCHOOL LEADERS
SEC. 2103. [20 U.S.C. 6613] LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.
(b) TYPES OF ACTIVITIES.—The programs and activities described in this subsection—
(3) may include, among other programs and activities—
(continued)
274 L. ZHANG ET AL.

Table A. Continued.
(E) providing high-quality, personalized professional development that is evidence-based, to the extent the State
(in consultation with local educational agencies in the State) determines that such evidence is reasonably available, for
teachers, instructional leadership teams, principals, or other school leaders, that is focused on improving teaching and student
learning and achievement, including supporting efforts to train teachers, principals, or other school leaders to—

SEC. 2212. [20 U.S.C. 6632] TEACHER AND SCHOOL LEADER INCENTIVE FUND GRANTS.
(e) USE OF FUNDS.—
(2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Grant funds under this subpart may be used for one or more of the following:
(A) Developing or improving an evaluation and support system, including as part of a human capital management
system as applicable, that—
(ii) provides teachers, principals, or other school leaders with ongoing, differentiated, targeted, and personalized
support and feedback for improvement, including professional development opportunities designed to increase effectiveness.
TITLE VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART A—DEFINITIONS
SEC. 8101. [20 U.S.C. 7801] DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise provided, in this Act:
(42) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.—The term ‘‘professional development’’ means activities that—
(B) are sustained (not stand-alone, 1-day, or short term workshops), intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven,
and classroom-focused, and may include activities that—
(iii) allow personalized plans for each educator to address the educator’s specific needs identified in observation or
other feedback;