Journal of Research on Technology in Education

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

Using personalized learning as an instructional

approach to motivate learners in online higher
education: Learner self-determination and
intrinsic motivation

Hamdan Alamri, Victoria Lowell, William Watson & Sunnie Lee Watson

To cite this article: Hamdan Alamri, Victoria Lowell, William Watson & Sunnie Lee Watson
(2020) Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to motivate learners in online
higher education: Learner self-determination and intrinsic motivation, Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 52:3, 322-352, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449

Published online: 22 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6530

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 67 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, 322–352
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449

Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to

motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-
determination and intrinsic motivation
Hamdan Alamria , Victoria Lowellb , William Watsonb , and Sunnie Lee Watsonb
a
Educational Technology Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; bCurriculum & Instruction/
Learning Design & Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY
ABSTRACT Received: 28 May 2019
Revised 27 January 2020
In this qualitative comparison study, we examine the perceived efficacy of Accepted 7 February 2020
using personalized learning (PL) activities based on PL principles to sup-
port students’ psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation in KEYWORDS
an online course using a traditional one-size-fits-all model. We apply self- Higher education; intrinsic
determination theory as a framework to investigate students’ perceptions motivation; online learning;
of their psychological need satisfaction (e.g., competence, autonomy, and perceived learning;
relatedness) and relation to students’ intrinsic motivation when enrolled in personalized learning;
an online course implementing PL principles. Overall, the study results motivation; self-
showed the potential of implementing personalized learning principles in determination theory
online courses to support students’ psychological need satisfaction (e.g.,
autonomy and competence) and intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, stu-
dents perceived the PL interventions as engaging and effective in meeting
their learning needs and interests.

Over the last century, the instructional approaches encouraged in formal learning contexts have
changed from teacher-centered to learner-centered paradigms (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Cuban, 1993;
Demski, 2012; Rickabaugh, 2012). This paradigm shift to learner-centered instruction in higher
education requires instructor’s roles to also change into learning designers and facilitators rather
than controllers of the learning process (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Despite the benefits of learner-
centered instruction, higher education instructors often still use a one-size-fits-all model for their
instructional practices (Demski, 2012), which is more consistent with meeting instructor needs
rather than student needs. In this model, instructors use a standardized curriculum for all stu-
dents, and student learning progresses in a time-based curriculum with set due dates rather than
through a process of skills mastery and knowledge acquisition (Demski, 2012).
Online courses are often developed and taught using this one-size-fits-all model to provide a
standardized curriculum, a model that does not meet many learners’ needs and interests (Demski,
2012). Personalized learning (PL) is a learner-centered instructional approach (McCombs, 2008,
2013) that can be implemented to provide instructional content focused on addressing learner
needs and interests (Watson & Watson, 2017). PL principles, including personalized instructional
goals, personalized instruction focused on learners’ interests, personal learning choices, learner
control, and personalized assessment and evaluation (see Table 1), can be implemented in an
online course to provide customized learning curricula that addresses individuals’ learning needs
and interests (Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, 2002; Bray & McClaskey, 2016; Sota, 2016; Watson &

CONTACT Hamdan Alamri [email protected] Educational Technology Department, King Saud University, P.BOX
145111 ZIP 4545, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
ß 2020 ISTE
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 323

Table 1. Alignment of personalized learning principles, instructional design decisions, and students’ perceptions toward the
targeted SDT components and learning outcomes.

Students’
Perceptions of Perceptions of
Targeted SDT Their SDT Perceptions of Learning
Instructional Design Contextual Contextual Learning Outcomes (One-
Decisions Support Support Outcomes Size-Fits-
Principles (Redesigned Course) (PL Course) (PL Course) (PL Course) All Course)

Personalized – Goal setting (ZPD) – Autonomy – Positive – Positive – Did not

Instructional (Vygotsky, 1978; Watson – Competence perception emerge in this
Goals & Watson, 2017) toward course
meeting condition
– Positive personal goals
Personalized – Learning pathways/tracks – Autonomy – Positive – Positive – Negative
Instruction (Watson & Watson, perception Perceptions
2017) – Competence toward toward one-
– PL assignments-task personalized size-fits-all
selection (Watson & – Intrinsic – Positive instruction course design
Watson, 2017) motivation
– Course project-project
design (Watson &
Watson, 2017) – Positive
– Instructor support
throughout the course
(Watson & Watson, 2017)
– Instructors’ facilitation
(Watson & Watson, 2017)
Learner Needs – PL course design (Barr & – Autonomy – Positive – Positive – Negative
and Interests Tagg, 1995; Bernacki & perceptions Perceptions
Walkington, 2018; – Competence toward toward one-
Walkington, 2013; meeting size-fits-all
Watson & Watson, 2017) – Intrinsic – Positive learning needs course
– Inclusion of all possible motivation and interests design
pathways/tracks within
the course objectives
and parameters (Barr & – Positive
Tagg, 1995; Bernacki &
Walkington, 2018;
Walkington, 2013;
Watson & Watson, 2017)
– Instructors’ facilitation of
PL course (Bernacki &
Walkington, 2018;
Watson & Watson, 2017)
– Personalized readings
(Watson & Watson, 2017)
Learner Choices – Learners given the – Autonomy – Positive – Positive – Students did
chance to select among perceptions not receive
learning topics, – Competence toward learning
activities, and meeting choices in this
instructional methods – Intrinsic – Positive learning course
(Bray & McClaskey, Motivation choices condition.
2016; Patall et al., 2010;
Watson & Watson, 2017)
– Personalized readings – Positive
(Watson & Watson, 2017)
– Curriculum relevance
(Assor et al., 2002;
Demski, 2012; Lee et al.,
2015; Patall et al., 2010;
Ryan & Deci, 2000)
(continued)
324 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

Table 1. Continued.
Students’
Perceptions of Perceptions of
Targeted SDT Their SDT Perceptions of Learning
Instructional Design Contextual Contextual Learning Outcomes (One-
Decisions Support Support Outcomes Size-Fits-
Principles (Redesigned Course) (PL Course) (PL Course) (PL Course) All Course)

Learning Control – PL course design (Barr & – Autonomy – Positive – Positive – Positive
and Tagg, 1995; Bray & perceptions perceptions
Independence McClaskey, 2016; – Competence toward toward
(Learning Demski, 2012; Watson & learning learning
Self-Drive) Watson, 2017) – Positive control and control and
– Learners decide their learning learning
learning pathways, self-drive self-drive
activities, and tasks (Barr
& Tagg, 1995; Bray &
McClaskey, 2016; Demski,
2012; Watson &
Watson, 2017)
PL in – Relevant curriculum, – Positive – Positive
Online interaction with – Relatedness – Negative perceptions perceptions
Learning instructors, interaction toward toward
between students, – Intrinsic relevant relevant
personalized online motivation curriculum curriculum
discussion boards, and – Positive (with support
PL as instructional from
approach in online instructors)
learning environment
(Sural & Yazici, 2018;
Watson & Watson, 2017)
PL Assessment – Individualized and – Autonomy – Positive Positive Positive
and Evaluation differentiated feedback, perceptions perceptions
proposed personalized – Competence toward PL toward PL
assignment plan, assessment assessment
reflection based on the – Relatedness – Positive and evaluation and evaluation
identified learning goals,
and peer feedback based
on the learning
pathways (Watson & – Negative
Watson, 2017)

Watson, 2017). This supports learners’ psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence,
and relatedness), leading to higher levels of intrinsic motivation and greater academic engagement
(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Therefore, for instructors teaching online courses, PL may provide
learners with a learning experience that better meets individuals’ learning backgrounds, needs,
and interests, and it improves learner satisfaction (Demski, 2012; New Media Consortium, 2016;
Rickabaugh, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Watson & Watson, 2017; Watson,
Watson, & Reigeluth, 2012).
Over the last few decades, researchers have focused on customizing instruction to provide PL
experiences (Demski, 2012; New Media Consortium, 2016). Despite this, little research has inves-
tigated the impact of PL interventions on learners’ autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
intrinsic motivation (Garrick, Pendergast, & Geelan, 2017; Wolper, 2016). In particular, there has
been limited investigation of interventions using customized instructional content in online
courses. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the potential of implementing PL
principles in online learning design, development, and implementation to provide better learning
experiences that are motivating and engaging for online graduate students. In this study, we
investigated the design, development, and implementation of an online course using PL principles
as an intervention to increase students’ psychological need satisfaction (e.g., autonomy,
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 325

competence, and relatedness) that might result in an increase in self-determination and intrinsic
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this study, we applied self-deter-
mination theory (SDT) as the framework to investigate students’ perceptions of their psycho-
logical need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) when enrolled in an
online course designed using personalized learning principles and SDT strategies. We also focused
on investigating how students’ learning experiences differed between a one-size-fits-all online
course and an online course created with a personalized learning approach.

Research questions
1. How do students perceive their psychological need satisfaction (e.g., autonomy, competence,
and relatedness) and intrinsic motivation in a personalized e-learning course compared to a
one-size-fits-all e-learning course?
2. How do students’ learning experiences differ between a one-size-fits-all online course and an
online course with a personalized learning approach?

Review of literature
Personalized learning
The concept of personalized learning is built on established learning theories such as Bruner’s
constructivism for supporting autonomous, active, and independent learners; Vygotsky’s focus on
social interaction, contextualization, and the zone of proximal development; and SDT (Deci,
Ryan, & Williams, 1996), which emphasizes the impact of goal setting on learners’ achievements
and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Watson & Watson, 2017). Personalized learning adheres
to the learner-centered paradigm to create learning that centers on the learner instead of the
instructor. Redding (2014) stated that personalized learning replaces the traditional educational
one-size-fits-all model that relies on time, place, and pace with one that engages learners to meet
their own needs, goals, and interests. Wolf (2010) mentioned that personalized learning trans-
forms the traditional educational model that is mostly dominated by time-based content compil-
ation and drives instructors toward a model that frees learners from those constraints, allowing
them to progress at their own pace. For this study, we adopted the Department of Education
Office of Educational Technology’s (2016) personalized learning definition, which states
the following:
Personalized learning refers to instruction in which the pace of learning and the instructional approach are
optimized for the needs of each learner. Learning objectives, instructional approaches, and instructional
content (and its sequencing) all may vary based on learner needs. In addition, learning activities are
meaningful and relevant to learners, driven by their interests, and often self-initiated. (p. 7)

Based on this definition, we define personalized learning as an approach that provides learning
choices and tailors learning content toward individuals’ learning needs, interests, goals, and prior
experiences to enhance knowledge and skills acquisition and support psychological need satisfac-
tion and intrinsic motivation.
Personalized learning has recently been trending in higher education. Administrators in some
universities and colleges have realized that personalized learning can enhance students’ learning
and increase retention (Foss, Foss, Paynton, & Hahn, 2014). Designing online courses in higher
education while applying personalized learning principle consideration supports and enhances
students’ basic needs, which affects their intrinsic motivation and thereby influences their learning
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). In this study, we implemented PL principles, including personalized
instructional goals, personalized instruction focusing on learners’ interests, personal learning
choices, learner control, and personalized assessment and evaluation (see Table 1) in a graduate-
326 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

level online course to improve students’ learning experiences by tailoring the learning materials
and content to their needs and interests.

Self-determination theory
SDT provides an understanding of motivation that “requires a consideration of innate psychological
needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 227). Field, Martin,
Miller, Ward, and Wehmeyer (1998) defined self-determination as a combination of the skills,
knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous
behavior, arguing that an understanding of one’s strengths and limitations together with a belief in
oneself as capable and effective are essential to self-determination. The theory defines three psycho-
logical needs: (a) competence refers to the “feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the
social environment and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities” (Deci &
Ryan, 2002, p. 7); (b) autonomy refers to “being self-initiating and self-regulating of one’s own
actions” (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991, p. 327); and (c) relatedness refers to “developing
secure and satisfying connections with others in one’s social milieu” (p. 327).
Online educators can use SDT strategies to design activities that support autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness. Reeve (2002) indicated that learning experiences that provide choices to
foster learning interests can support autonomy while controlled learning environments that pro-
vide external rewards can decrease learners’ perceived autonomy. According to SDT, learning
environments that support learning choices and interests (e.g., personalized learning environ-
ment) are more likely to support perceived autonomy and competence (Garn & Jolly, 2014;
Patall, Cooper, & Wynn, 2010).
Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) found providing relevant curriculum to be a factor that sup-
ports feelings of autonomy. Prior researchers have also suggested that fostering relevance in the
learning environment might be a supportive practice that enhances autonomy, resulting in sup-
porting learners’ goals, interests, and values (Assor et al., 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Students
become autonomous when they feel their individual interests have been taken into consideration
(Reeve & Jang, 2006) and have been provided with academic activities that are relevant to their
academic and professional interests (Lee, Pate, & Cozart, 2015). Learners must see a meaningful
connection between the learning objectives and their learning and professional development (Lee
et al., 2015), and, specifically, online learners need to see the connection to avoid dropping the
course. Thus, personalizing an online course through designing a relevant curriculum focused on
students’ needs and interests can result in more autonomous learners. Research has revealed that
when learners see the connection between the course content and assignments, it is more likely
that the learners will spend more time and effort, resulting in a higher potential to complete the
course assignments (Lee et al., 2015; Patall et al., 2010).
SDT emphasizes that educators should help students feel competent by providing optimal chal-
lenge activities and performance feedback. Deci et al. (1991) indicated that perceived competence
is linked to intrinsic motivation. Garn and Jolly (2014) stated that “feelings of competence are
promoted when learning environments differentiate tasks at the appropriate level of challenge for
high ability students” (p. 11). Giving students meaningful learning choices has proven to be a
supportive strategy for promoting feelings of competence (Garn & Jolly, 2014).
According to SDT, supporting perceived feeling of relatedness facilitates intrinsic motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Effective interaction and communication among
instructors and students can support students’ feelings of relatedness to their environment (Garn
& Jolly, 2014). SDT emphasizes that, when a learning environment enhances learning interests,
students will likely feel supported in terms of their relatedness and competence (Garn &
Jolly, 2014).
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 327

Intrinsic motivation
Individuals who are intrinsically motivated have behaviors that they “are engaged in for their
own sake, for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from their performance” (Deci et al., 1991, p.
328). Deci and Ryan (1985) theorized that intrinsic motivation enhances people’s ability to work
on activities that relate to their desires and inclinations, regardless of external rewards and their
psychological basic needs for self-satisfaction. Deci (1975) proposed that intrinsic motivation
refers to individuals’ seeking feelings of competency and self-determination (as cited in Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Activities that enhance intrinsic motivation lead to deeper engagement, which results
in promotion and growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Deci and Ryan (2000) also argued that extrinsic
rewards can shift motivation from internal to external and undermine individuals’ feelings of
motivation, resulting in their feeling controlled.

Personalized course design and SDT recommendations

Studies have shown the importance of students’ motivation in online learning environments (Lim
& Kim, 2002; Park & Choi, 2009; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Chen and Jang (2010) identified
how to mediate the effect of online learners’ need satisfaction between “contextual support and
motivation/self-determination” (p. 741) and suggested providing online learners with a learner-
centered environment, flexible learning options, and a choice in learning strategies, emphasizing
that online instructors need to provide customized facilitation to individuals to reduce uncertainty
to promote motivated and self-determined online learners.
We therefore relied, for the PL course design, on the SDT theoretical recommendations to
provide contextual support to enhance online learners’ feelings of autonomy by providing rele-
vant curriculum (Assor et al., 2002), a learner-centered environment that allows choices to foster
learning interests (Chen & Jang, 2010; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Garn & Jolly, 2014; Patall et al., 2010;
Reeve, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and opportunities for personalization (Patall et al., 2010).
Feelings of competence were supported through meaningful learning choices, differentiated tasks,
and choice in different learning strategies (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Garn & Jolly, 2014; Reeve, 2002;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). We also implemented several strategies to promote feelings of relatedness,
including instructors’ interacting and communicating with online learners to support their indi-
vidual needs, personalized peer-feedback to support interaction and communication between stu-
dents based on their learning interests, and designing personalized discussion boards in the
learning management system to group students based on their learning pathways (Chen & Jang,
2010; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Garn & Jolly, 2014; Reeve, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000; see Table 1).

Methods
We used a qualitative research design to examine students’ perceptions of their experiences within
a one-size-fits-all course in comparison with a personalized online course. We gathered data using
an in-depth interview protocol and course reflections. Because the purpose of the study was to
investigate the courses’ influence on graduate students’ psychological need satisfaction and intrin-
sic motivation, we used thematic analysis to analyze the interviews and compare the extracted
themes from the two courses (i.e., one-size-fits-all course and personalized e-learning course;
Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006). The aim of the comparison between themes was to under-
stand how students perceived their learning experiences with the personalized learning approach
compared to those in the one-size-fits-all course (Creswell, 2013).

General learning context

The research occurred in an online course (Partnering with Web-based Tools for Learner-
Centered Environments) in a Learning Design and Technology online graduate program at a
328 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

large, Midwestern university in the United States. The program welcomes professionals from
around the world, who come with their own experiences, needs, and interests. Course sections
typically have 15–20 students enrolled, with one to two course sections offered in the fall and
also in the spring semester. Courses are taught by full-time faculty or adjuncts, and their career
experience may not align with that of the students.
Although the program attracts students from different professional areas, learning and career
interests can generally be categorized into four main categories: higher education, K–12 educa-
tion, corporate training, and consultancy. Despite the varied student career interests, we found
from the student feedback that the course content and instructional practices hindered students’
learning, engagement, and enjoyment of the course. Many students reported that the course con-
tent was overly focused on K–12 instruction and that opportunities to learn based on personal
learning interests and career needs were not being met. The course materials, including readings
and videos, and the course activities such as discussions and assignments, were focused on K–12
education. Students who had little experience or interest in working as an instructional designer
in the K–12 area found the materials and the instructional methods uninteresting, and they were
not aligning with their learning needs. Therefore, the course underwent a redesign to include
opportunities for students to personalize their learning throughout their learning experience.

Personalized course design

The online course used in this study was initially designed using a one-size-fits-all model. Based
on students’ feedback on course evaluations, we conducted student interviews and surveys and
examined course reflections to understand students’ learning needs and interests in this course.
We asked questions to explore students’ interests and needs (e.g., (1) “Thinking back to your
learning goals from our week 1 discussion, do you feel you succeeded in meeting those goals?
How did the course format assist with this process? Do you feel how you learned and what you
learned aligns with your goals?” and (2) “Were there instructional content and/or experiences
you feel prevented you or were barriers in learning things you found to be personally relevant?”).
We also served as the instructional designers and found that enrolled students’ main areas of
foci were K–12, higher education, corporate training, and consultancy. Therefore, we utilized per-
sonalized learning principles to redesign the course and provide learning content, assignments,
activities, and assessments based on these four areas of interest. The options that are presented to
learners include instructional strategies and materials that align the learning with learner’s per-
sonal needs and interests. Although learners have many options, including defining their learning
choices, preferences, and interests, the instructors still control deadlines and some decisions (i.e.,
assessment and evaluation) to ensure that learning meets the course parameters. We also pro-
vided flexibility for students whose career interests may branch across these four areas, such as
those interested in instructional design consulting. The course content that was provided was
aligned with the four areas of interest (learning pathways), including textbooks, case studies,
articles, instructional videos, and external links, as well as a variety of learning resources.
Therefore, students in each of the learning pathways had different textbooks, readings, videos,
and other course content. In addition, students could substitute or add additional different learn-
ing content and resources as the learning resources for their studies.

Learning pathways
We created four different pathways encompassing the students’ learning needs, interests, and
preferences and gave students the option of selecting their learning pathway to which they would
use as they progressed in the course.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 329

PL assignments
We designed the course assignments to create flexibility, giving students the opportunity to design
their assignments based on their area of interest, including the selection of the topic, context,
assignment components, and associated learning content. In addition, students had the option to
propose the assessments of their learning through creating a proposal for their major course assign-
ments. This “Proposed Personalized Assignment Plan” option provided students with a template
they could use when creating their plan for their major assignments for the course.

Online discussion boards

We revised the discussion forums and discussion threads to provide opportunities for discussing
topics within the different pathways and across the pathways and provide opportunities for students
to receive feedback from others with similar learning pathway interests. We created some discussion
forums and threads for students from all pathways and designed others for specific learning path-
ways; students joined and interacted in the forum according to their learning pathway.

Assessment and feedback

Instructors provided personalized assessment and feedback for every learner and allowed learners
to tweak the course content, due dates, assignments, and projects.

Reflection
We asked students to reflect at the beginning of the course and at the end of the course on their
learning goals and interests. In addition, at the end of the course, we asked students to consider
whether the course design and format had helped them meet their learning goals and interests
(see Table 1 and Figure 1).

Figure 1. The personalized e-learning course model used in designing the course.

Data collection
We conducted data collection during the 2018/2019 academic year. During the final week of the
course, we invited students to participate in interviews to obtain their perceptions of their psy-
chological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation during their enrollment in the one-size-fits-
330 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

all course and the personalized course. All enrolled students had the chance to participate and
share their experiences. We used a semi-structured interview protocol to interview the partici-
pants, including SDT, and personalized learning terms and definitions to ensure the participants
understand the protocol content. During the interview, we introduced the participants to the
research topic, objectives, terms, and definitions. In particular, we asked all participants about
their definition of personalized learning and its possibility to be implemented in formal education
(see Table 2). We conducted the interviews via multiple methods, including phone or WebEx.
We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews verbatim. Each interview lasted approximately
20–40 min. In addition, students reflected on their learning during the course and how the course
(one-size-fits-all course or the personalized e-learning course format) assisted them to learn and
meet their personal learning goals.

Table 2. Interviewees’ perceptions of personalized learning.

Interviewees (Pseudonym) PL Definition

Sara (One-Size-Fits-All Course) “I definitely think this approach can be helpful. I personally think it’s a necessity for
students to feel like that learning applies to them and the world around them.”
Katherine (One-Size-Fits-All Course) “Personalized training would be great, instead of having to follow a
specific curriculum.”
Emily (One-Size-Fits-All Course) “I’m a big advocate for customized or personalized learning. It’s hard to do that. I’m
just thinking about my situation. I am particularly interested in online science
education. I have a very strong background in science, so it would be kind of hard
for an instructor who wasn’t as comfortable in science to advise and to work with
me. It is very nice in theory, but hard to implement.”
Kim (One-Size-Fits-All Course) “I think that it would be very effective; personalized learning is really [a] key to the
transfer of knowledge.”
Amelia (Personalized Course) “Personalized learning in a formal environment is awesome because you still have the
structure of the formal environment and hopefully the guidance, but you’re able to
take what you need to from the course and learn how to apply it to your own work
environment . . . I think it’s a huge motivating factor for people.”
Emma (Personalized Course) “I think that it’s really important, and I think that there’s definitely a movement in
education to look more at [personalized learning] rather than treating students all
the same.”
Maya (Personalized Course) “I think it’s really great because not everybody has the same goal or same need to
learn things. They may need to learn for a different reason than others. I think
personalizing the learning is really good because that way it’s more relevant to
what the student needs. And in this case, I was a corporate learner, so it was more
about doing the corporate pathway. It was more relevant to my world, more
realistic for me so that would go for everyone else. My conversation is about
corporate, and what we do in my company wouldn’t necessarily apply to what
someone needs in kindergarten.”
David (Personalized Course) “I think personalized learning is great. It’s a newer concept if I’m not incorrect about
that. It’s a newer concept in instruction. And I think it’s good. It presents a lot of
challenges, but I think if it can be done properly, it’s good.”

Course setting and participants

In this study, we utilized an online course to implement personalized learning as an instructional
approach. Two instructors taught the original one-size-fits-all course, and, after we redesigned the
course using personalized learning principles and offering students four pathways to choose from,
providing an opportunity of choice of more personalized content and assignments, the same
instructors taught the one-size-fits-all course as a personalized learning course.
The study participants included graduate students enrolled in six sections of the online gradu-
ate-level course offered during the spring and fall semester. The study included four participants
from the one-size-fits-all course and four participants from the personalized course to compare
students’ perceptions regarding their perceived learning, psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 331

Table 3. Interview participants’ demographics.

Pseudonym Instructional Approach Learning Pathways Current Job Future Job

Sara One-Size-Fits-All Course Corporate Training Corporate Trainer Instructional Designer in

Global Corporate
Katherine One-Size-Fits-All Course Corporate Training Technology Trainer Technology Trainer
Emily One-Size-Fits-All Course Higher Education Faculty Member in a College Faculty Member in a College
Kim One-Size-Fits-All Course Higher Education and Media Instructional Instructional Designer within
K
12 Pathways Technology Specialist the Context of Agriculture
Emma Personalized Course Higher Education English as Second English as Second
Language Instructor Language Instructor
Amelia Personalized Course Higher Education Instructional Designer Instructional Designer
Maya Personalized Course Corporate Training Trainer/Instructional Designer Instructional Designer for a
Pathway in the Corporate World Consulting Firm
David Personalized Course Corporate Training Learning and Development Instructional Designer and
Pathway Specialist Instructor in the Industry

motivation, and online learning experiences and engagement. We interviewed all participants
from the one-size-fits-all course who agreed to participate in this study and selected interviewees
from the PL course based on their learning pathways to include at least one interviewee from
every pathway in the course. We informed the participants that their participation was voluntary
and would not affect their course grades. Demographic information for participants that partici-
pated in interviews can be viewed in Table 3.
Table 2 represents interviewees’ perceptions of personalized learning definitions and applica-
tions in formal education. We asked all participants from both courses to share their own defini-
tions and understanding of the personalized learning in formal education and online learning
environment.

Data analysis
We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews to prepare for coding and the categorizing process,
and we applied the thematic analysis approach to identify the themes from the interviews and
course reflections (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006). We followed Saldana’s (2016) three
coding cycles. First, we conducted the first cycle of coding using multiple readings of interviews
and sentence-level coding. In this cycle, we used deductive coding to identify the themes that
bear relation to the specific questions asked to the interviewees (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For
example, we asked students to identify the factors that supported their feeling of autonomy then
we coded these factors accordingly and grouped them under the feeling of autonomy theme. We
conducted the second cycle of coding inductively to extract emerging themes that represent stu-
dents’ perceptions of their learning and experiences in the one-size-fits-all course and personal-
ized course. For example, the Students Unsatisfied with the Course Content and Course Approach
theme emerged from the one-size-fits-all course interviews and course reflections. We coded the
third cycle to finalize the codes and themes for each research question (Saldana, 2016). During
the coding procedures, we documented, analyzed, and discussed the themes with examples until
we achieved consensus and established consistency. In addition, we included quotes from partici-
pant interviews to support the validity and dependability of the findings. Following this, we com-
pared the themes between the two courses. For example, we coded the factors that supported
students’ feeling of autonomy and compared them across the two courses to examine whether per-
sonalized learning contributed to supporting this type of feeling during the course.
Two major themes were the focus of the research in this study: psychological need satisfaction
and perceived learning. We applied the three SDT perspectives—feelings of autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000)—as the framework and the subthemes to investigate
332 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

the factors that supported students’ psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation in
both instructional approaches: the one-size-fits-all course and the personalized course (see Table
4). The second major theme for this research study is perceived learning to investigate how stu-
dents perceived the personalized learning approach in an online course compared with students’
perceptions of the one-size-fits-all approach.
Within the major themes, we then compared and contrasted the subthemes (e.g., personal choices)
and factors (e.g., course project, personalized learning approach, personalized readings) between the
two courses to reveal the effect of personalized learning as an instructional approach in online learning
courses (see Table 4). The purpose of this comparison was to determine (a) the factors that affected
students’ feelings of psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation and (b) whether personal-
ized learning contributed to supporting those variables within online learning courses.

Validation and reliability

In this study, we followed multiple procedures to achieve internal validity (Onwuegbuzie & Leech,
2007; Polit & Beck, 2010). The procedures included data triangulation (interviews and course reflec-
tions analysis). Three volunteer experts (professors and instructional designers) participated in the
review process of the interview protocol, which then was piloted with three participants to record
time and any issues that could affect the actual interviews. We also conducted member-checking
procedures by sharing the results with the participants to ensure credibility of the results.
We applied a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A), and one researcher conducted all
eight interviews to ensure consistency of the data and findings. For the dependability of the study, we
transcribed the interviews verbatim and included the positive and negative findings or concepts regard-
ing students’ perceptions from both the personalized course and one-size-fits-all course.

Results
R1 – How do students perceive their psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and
relatedness) and intrinsic motivation in a personalized e-learning course compared to a one-size-fits-all e-
learning course?

Self-determination: Feeling of autonomy

We asked participants from both courses (i.e., one-size-fits-all and personalized course) during
the interviews to report the factors that supported their feeling of autonomy during their course
experience. Students perceived the course project as helpful to facilitate their feeling of autonomy
in both courses. However, the participants from the one-size-fits-all course indicated that effective
facilitation from their instructors was the primary reason for their feeling of autonomy when com-
pleting the course project assignment. Participants from the personalized course indicated that the
course project and the personalized course design (learning pathways) were the primary factors that
facilitated the feeling of autonomy (see Table 4).

Perceptions regarding the course project

The course project allowed students to create a training or course lesson with which they were
interested. We asked students to select a topic and design the project to produce a lesson that
could be taught to learners. The personalized course provided students with the option to modify
the assignment to meet their needs. The majority of the participants from both courses perceived
the design of the course project as a factor that promoted their feeling of autonomy. The majority
of participants (in both courses) thought that the project was set up to select whatever they were
interested in, with a flexibility to adapt the focus of the project toward their learning needs.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 333

Project design. We designed the course project as three sequential assignments to allow students
to progress throughout the course time with instructors’ feedback. The interviewees perceived the
course project design as a key factor in supporting students’ feeling of autonomy due to the
design flexibility and ability to select the topics of their projects. When asked about the factors
that supported feeling of autonomy, Kim said, “The ability to choose what my own project was,
as well as the flexibility,” and Emily said, “The main project that we were doing helps with the
sense of autonomy, of the ability to pick which technology I wanted to investigate, that helped.”

Instructor’s support. Instructors supported students individually and provided instruction that
helped students feel confident and personalize the course focus toward their needs. Therefore,
participants reported that they felt autonomous when instructors were flexible and supportive
with regard to the course project. Sara, who was in the traditional course, mentioned,
Like with the big project … there were some parameters of the assignment that wouldn’t exactly work for …
my … team [that was focused on corporate settings] itself, but I was able to find ways to adapt both the
assignment and what my team needed to meet all of those needs … [and by] reaching out to my professor.

Personalized course design

Participants from the personalized course perceived the course design as a contributor to their
feeling of autonomy. Although the factor that supported students’ feeling of autonomy in the
one-size-fits-all course was the project, the larger PL course design as a whole was perceived to
promote autonomy (see Table 4). Participants from the personalized course reported ease with
aligning the course project to their learning needs and found the course content and the path-
ways supported their learning and helped to complete the course project. When Emma was asked
whether she felt autonomous in the personalized course, she said,
I think the course was definitely set up to [support autonomy]; you could be as engaged or disengaged as
you wanted. The pathways were nice because I could follow my path. I also was able to read about
workplace [sic], designing for the workplace, which I did. I felt that was really helpful and interesting.

When Maya was asked about the support for autonomy in the personalized course, she said,
I think it did create autonomy for me to be able to go and teach myself how to use something new … .
The pathway specifically helped me determine and align course content with initiatives that I needed to
accomplish at my job too.

Self-determination: Feeling of competence

We asked interviewees from both courses whether the course supported their feeling of compe-
tence and investigated the specific course factors that supported their feeling of competence.
Amelia, an interviewee from the personalized course, described how the course both challenged
her and increased her confidence:
I think that my confidence increased significantly because of this course. I feel like it also challenged my
competence. Where I was a little bit more confident that I would be able to do certain tasks, it kind of
humbled me a little bit to realize that I wasn’t as good at it than [sic] I had thought I was. Overall, my
confidence increased because of this course and, in a sense, it brought to light what I needed to work on.

Participants from the one-size-fits-all courses mentioned they felt competent when completing
the course project. In comparison, interviewees from the personalized course perceived the flexible
learning pathways design as the factor that supported their feeling of competence (see Table 4).
334 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

Course project
Participants from the one-size-fits-all course indicated that because the course project was
designed so that they had flexibility to create their project based on their interests, it also sup-
ported their feeling of competence. Participants mentioned that the course project assisted them
to progress consistently throughout the course and increase their confidence in designing instruc-
tion. For example, when asked about her feeling of competence, Emily explained that the course
project “was for a real-world situation, so that made me feel competent in instructional design.”
These participants indicated that the course project assignment was authentic, relevant, and flex-
ible in both types of courses.

Personalized course design

Interviewees from the personalized course explicitly stated that the personalized course design
(including the learning pathways) supported their feeling of competence during the course (see
Tables 1 and 4). The interviewees indicated that they felt competent when they found the learn-
ing pathways were providing content that aligned with their learning needs and interests. They
mentioned that such a course design increased their competence significantly. Emma said,
I really liked the idea of the pathways. I felt that was really helpful, and most of the articles were [focused
on her topic of] higher education … . I felt like reading those articles and being able to discuss those with
my colleagues, that’s kind of like a success for me because I feel like, Oh, I’m on the right path … I feel
that I was able to demonstrate to myself that I have learned something, so I feel more confident in a sense,
and even a little bit more confident in my abilities to even talk about things or suggest things.

When Maya was asked about the support for competence in the personalized course, she said,
“I think it added to my ability to think about what I can use to engage the students in my class-
es.” She also mentioned that the course design supported her feeling of competence because of
the opportunity to meet other students from the same learning pathway to provide personalized
feedback. She said, “I do [feel competent], particularly because people in my same pathway were
able to provide feedback. Their feedback could be more specific because it’s coming from some-
one that knows essentially what realm you’re in.”

Self-determination: Feeling of relatedness

We asked interviewees from both courses to reveal the factors that helped with their feeling of
relatedness. In this study, the level of relatedness varied among students from both courses.
Although some interviewees reported they felt related during the course, others did not feel con-
nected or that they belonged. The majority of participants from both courses perceived the lack of
relatedness and connection with others within the course (see Table 4). Interviewees who felt
relatedness in these courses and connected socially thought that interaction with their instructors
played an important role in their feelings of relatedness within the course. Therefore, these findings
did not indicate whether personalizing the course (e.g., personalized discussion board and personal-
ized peer feedback) supported the students’ feeling of relatedness. However, the theme, lack of inter-
action between students, emerged from interviews and course reflections from both courses.

Interaction with their instructors

Interviewees from the one-size-fits-all course indicated they felt related to the instructors.
Interaction and communication with the instructors played an important role in regard to feeling
related within the course. Emily said, “To my other classmates I would say no … if it was for
the instructor I did feel very connected to, very relatable. She was quick to respond.” When Sara
was asked how the instructor helped her feel related to the social environment, she said, “I defin-
itely felt like I belonged … [the instructor] was really helpful in kind of walking me through
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 335

those, answering my questions, and making me feel supported.” Interviewees from the personal-
ized course indicated similar findings; they felt connected with their instructors, which supported
their feeling of relatedness in this course. Maya said,
Yeah. She was great. She was very open and very quick to reply whenever you had a question, and
especially since the way she delivered her beginning weekly message via either voiceover PowerPoint or
voiceover with a video and stuff. So you really got to feel connected with her too.

Interaction between students

However, differing from the sense of relatedness with the course instructor, interviewees from
both courses indicated they felt a lack of interaction with other students.

One-size-fits-all course. Participants from the one-size-fits-all course indicated that the course did
not provide a feeling of relatedness, and they lacked interaction. When Katherine was asked about
her feeling of relatedness in the course, she said she did not feel related to her peers stating, “No,
not really, the discussion board is the only way we have of connecting, and it’s hard to find com-
ments that you made to somebody.” When Emily was asked about her feelings of relatedness she
said, “Yeah, if it was for the instructor I did feel very connected to, very relatable … . to the other
students, I would say no.”

Personalized course participants. Participants from the personalized course felt the pathways were
helpful in their learning, but, unfortunately, due to the design of the course pathways, students
noted they led to a decrease of interactions with other students in different pathways, which cre-
ated a feeling of a lack of relatedness/connectedness to others in the course. Emma explained, “I
would say in the sense that maybe intellectually I felt connected [related] to them, but on a social
level, not really.” Amelia said, “I didn’t really know anyone, so I didn’t feel connected [related] in
that sense.” Personalizing the discussion board according to the learning pathways did not con-
tribute to increasing students’ interaction and connection with one another. Both Emma and
Amelia indicated that although they enjoyed the personalized pathway design, they were the only
learners in each pathway. Amelia mentioned,
It was a motivating factor and a challenge in that you were able to tailor the course to your specific
interests. It was a motivating factor because I was able to immediately apply the concepts learned under a
higher educational setting, which I then took to my current position. But it was a challenge because no one
else chose that track.

Course reflections analysis also showed that the learning pathways did not support students’ interac-
tions and feeling of relatedness. Other students mentioned that the pathways might limit their inter-
actions, as well as the sharing of perspectives. Robert stated that “while it focuses the course on
[students’] goals, it limits learners’ perspectives and potentially limits their desire to change goals.”

Intrinsic motivation
We asked the interviewees to report the factors that motivated them intrinsically in these two
online courses. Interviewees from the one-size-fits-all course found instructors’ facilitation as a
motivating factor and an influencing factor that motivated them. Interviewees from the personal-
ized course considered personalized readings as motivating factors because they could conceptual-
ize the application for those readings in their current job practices. Curriculum relevance tended
to be a factor in both courses. Interviewees from the one-size-fits-all course described the content
as relevant but with instructor support and facilitation, whereas interviewees from the personalized
336 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

course found the curriculum personalized and relevant to their learning without assistance from
instructors (see Table 4).

Instructors’ facilitation
In this study, facilitation refers to assisting students in learning and completing the objectives of
the course through serving as a guide as students complete the course activities.
Interviewees in the one-size-fits-all course indicated they felt motivated when they received
effective facilitation from their instructors. They believed their instructors were flexible to modify
the course to meet their needs and interests. Some interviewees mentioned that, without the
instructors’ facilitation, they would have dropped the course. Katherine called her instructor, “the
most down to earth person I worked with yet … he kept me motivated to keep going because I
kept telling him, I’m not a K–12 teacher.” Sara said, “My professor was very helpful in finding
how to adapt the project, like the standards of the assignment and the rubric, finding ways to
adapt that to what my actual job needed.” Thus, instructors’ facilitation and interaction played a
major role in motivating learners in the one-size-fits-all online course. Maya, an interviewee from
the personalized course, said, “I enjoyed the fact that she did either video or audio messages for
us to be able to listen to her expectations of the week, so that was really good.”

Personalized reading
Personalized reading content, in the personalized course, was a key motivating factor for students
in the personalized course. Surprisingly, interviewees from this course mentioned they wanted more
personalized readings that target the learning pathways. This was not the case in the one-size-fits-
all course, where all readings were focused on K–12 teaching and learning. Amelia said, “I’m also
motivated because I could directly apply what I was reading in these articles to my daily practice.”
Emma works as an instructional designer and instructor, and she was designing and developing les-
son plans for classrooms in higher education settings. She indicated that the personalized readings
assisted her to apply what she learned to her current day-to-day practices. She said,
[The course] showed me my gaps; it was motivating in and of itself … a lot of times, the articles that we
read, I tell my boss about them like, you should read this, because it’s first of all, developing our curriculum
and stuff.

David found the personalized readings (corporate training pathway) as a motivating factor. He
said, “It was interesting; it was relevant.”

Curriculum relevance
Curriculum relevance means that students receive learning content and materials that are aligned
with their needs and interests, and the tasks must meet their short- or long-term goals. In this
study, curriculum relevance emerged as a motivating factor for the majority of the interviewees
from both courses.

One-size-fits-all course. Even though the one-size-fits-all course did not include relevant curricu-
lum for students who have interests in other areas than K–12 teaching and learning, instructors
could successfully help students engage during their learning in the course and feel motivated.
Findings showed that instructors assisted and facilitated their learning, and they could success-
fully ensure the readings, assignments, and the focus of the course met their learning needs and
interests. They indicated that instructors were motivating them to learn by engaging with them in
the discussion boards and helping to align the materials, contents, and assignments toward their
learning preferences. Katherine, who enrolled in the one-size-fits-all course, did not enjoy the
focus of the course and mentioned that the instructor helped her align the course focus toward
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 337

her needs, which motivated her to work on the course assignments. Sara said, “My professor was
helpful in finding how to adapt the project.” Only Kim mentioned that the one-size-fits-all course
provided her with relevant learning materials that met her needs and interests, which is teaching
in K–12 settings.

Personalized course. Participants from the personalized course indicated that the curriculum was
personalized to their learning, which provided relevant learning content that could be applied in
their workplace. Amelia said, “We like things to be relevant. We like to be able to apply it, and it
was a motivating factor. I’m also motivated because I could directly apply what I was reading in
these articles to my daily practice.” Emma said,
I think it was designed well in the sense that it was manageable. I felt like I was able to learn that things
that I wanted to learn … I work with college students, I want to know how to improve their learning.

When Maya was asked about her intrinsic motivation in the personalized course, she responded that
the course provided relevant materials that assisted her learning and in her profession. She said,
I really, really enjoyed the section where we were split into different pathways. I thought that was a great
idea because that way we got to experience material that was specifically for, in my case, the corporate
pathway and share with the other people that are in the corporate pathway.

Course reflections analysis also showed that the personalized course provided relevant and
aligning content and resources for students’ needs and interests. The majority of the participants
indicated that the course enhanced their learning by providing relevant curriculum (e.g., “I
thought the space to apply the learning to my own pathway was fun and relevant to my own
work” (Jennifer), “Being able to choose my focus on corporate training made this course immedi-
ately relevant” (Daniel), and “This course utilized relevant resources that can be useful in creating
and partnering for learning-centered pedagogies in the years to come” (Jessica). By comparing
the curriculum relevance theme from both instructional approaches, the findings showed that,
without intervention and help from the instructors, students in the personalized course found the
curriculum to be personalized and relevant to their learning needs. Interviewees indicated that
they felt motivated and engaged when they found the learning materials were aligned with their
learning needs and interests.
R2 – How do students’ learning experiences differ between a one-size-fits-all online course and an online
course with a personalized learning approach?

We examined interviewees’ perceptions of their learning from both instructional approaches: the
one-size-fits-all course and personalized course. The interviews illuminated several themes that
represent how students’ perceived their learning in these two instructional approaches. We com-
pared themes from both instructional approaches to reveal whether the personalized learning
approach affected students’ learning and provided positive learning experiences and engagement.
From the personalized course interviews, we found personalized learning approach, engagement,
learning choice, learning interest, learning control, and deeper learning to be the factors that
showed positive and effective experiences students perceived during their course time. These fac-
tors revealed that students’ reported experiences in the personalized learning course were positive,
and the personalized learning approach could provide better learning opportunities than the one-
size-fits-all course approach through enhancing students’ learning needs and choices, supporting
their learning interests, and allowing for more learning independence. Interviewees from person-
alized course found the course design supported their online learning and was more effective (see
Tables 1 and 4).
Themes from the one-size-fits-all course showed the need to personalize this particular course
to address students’ learning needs and meet their educational background. When we asked inter-
viewees how they perceived their learning during the course time, Emily, Katherine, and Sara
338 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

mentioned that the one-size-fits-all course did not meet their expectations or their learning needs.
Therefore, the students unsatisfied with the course content and course approach theme emerged
from these three interviews. This theme showed that the students who took this course did not
have interests or needs in K–12 settings, which led to negative learning experiences.

Students unsatisfied with the course content and course approach

This theme emerged from interviews and course reflections analysis from the one-size-fits-all
course (see Table 4). We asked participants to describe their learning in this online course. The
results showed the need to personalize this particular online course to meet students’ learning
needs and interests and incorporate more learning choices to address students’ learning needs
that align and support their career endeavors. Katherine indicated that she joined the course
based on the description that was listed on the program website. Despite the fact that Katherine
works at the corporate training sector as a technology trainer, she had to complete the K–12
learning focus. She said,
I didn’t know when I signed up for it that it was based on K–12. I have no desire to be a K–12 teacher …
But I just kind of like, okay, well, I’m here, gotta do something with it. What was interesting, not having a
K–12 background, I was literally making stuff up as to what I would put in my lesson plan, and it actually
became quite fun to do all the research to figure out how would I teach a high school kid this subject?

Lisa, a course reflections participant, mentioned that she did not find the focus of the course and
the topic relevant to her learning needs. She said,
I really think the phrase K–12 classroom should be in the course description. I might have still ended up
here, but, for the uninitiated, it wasn’t particularly obvious where the focus would aim … I did not prefer
to spend class time on that topic.

Sara mentioned that she wanted to make the course’s project apply to her current job and her
profession. She said, “For me, it was finding how to make the project apply to my current role,
my professional role.” She indicated that the instructor managed her choices and allowed for
more flexibility in the course. Sara mentioned that the instructor provided her with relevant read-
ing materials even though the course focused only on the K–12 context. She used the course
materials and contents to support her learning needs. In the end, she could successfully design a
project that aligns with her profession and her interests and learning focus.
Emily had an interest in higher education and wanted to attain a master’s degree to enhance
her knowledge in higher education teaching and learning. She said, “I’m interested in higher edu-
cation because I work at a community college, so anytime we could take the content and engage
in it in a way that was personal, that was relatable to me.” However, she had issues with the
“one-size-fits-all” course assignments. She indicated the struggle to direct the focus toward her
interests and needs as well as the clarity of the assignments. She also complained about the focus
of the materials in the course, which was K–12 teaching and learning.
Unsurprisingly, the “one-size-fits-all” course was helpful primarily to students who were focus-
ing on K–12 settings. Kim was interested in instructional design for both higher education and
K–12 settings and mentioned that she successfully managed to use the course materials and con-
tents to work on the course projects and assignments.

Personalized learning approach

The personalized course provided personalized pathways/tracks that allowed students to align the
course content toward their learning needs and interests. We asked the interviewees to share their
experiences in regard to the pathway design and whether this design could address their learning
needs and expectations from the course. The results showed that the personalized to learners
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 339

strategy using pathways design was perceived as effective for students to align the learning with
their needs and interests. To compare this theme with students unsatisfied with the course content
and course approach theme, students needed personalized learning as an instructional approach
to provide a flexible course aligned to their learning needs. The results also indicated that stu-
dents liked the personalized pathways design and enjoyed learning from this method; however, it
was challenging for some learners, who were the only learners in that pathway. Participants such
as Emma felt motivated and engaged when they found the pathway met their learning needs and
interests. Emma said,
I think the most meaningful thing for me was the concepts of the pathways … I didn’t want to spend time
for using K through 12 things that I’m just never going to use … you don’t have to keep go hunting [sic]
for a lot of additional readings or information.

Therefore, Emma indicated that the course successfully provided the needed learning pathway
that helped her focus on what she needed from the course. Amelia indicated that readings (e.g.,
textbook, articles, personalized case studies) and assignments (e.g., course project) were personal-
ized components for her learning. Maya found that the course personalized and aligned with her
learning needs and interests. David found the personalized course as effective and has potential
to be developed and implemented in his context. He said,
I would design something similar, yes. I think the pathways were good. I know, for example, for the
pathway that I was in, it was really appropriate and helpful to have that pathway. I think possibly if I were
a decision maker in creating a program like this, I might consider more or different pathways, and I would
possibly consider maybe having a couple of more pathways that would more personalize the learning … I
definitely learned a lot. Not only from my corporate perspective that I’ve been in for so long. But as I
mentioned, also interacting with students who were in other pathways. We were in the same course, but we
were in different pathways, and I can say I learned a lot from my interactions with students in other
pathways too.

The course reflections analysis also demonstrated that almost all students enjoyed their learning
in this personalized course. Course reflections participants stated, “I really liked the pathways.
This was the first class where I could do work and readings based specifically on what I want to
do with my degree” (Kathryn), “I really appreciated your approach with regard to branching
options depending on our chosen focus (K–12, Higher Education and Corporate Training)”
(Daniel), “I enjoyed the way it had pathways specific to the goals of each type of learner in the
course” (Justin), and “I like the notion of differentiation” (Erika). (Kelli) mentioned, “I liked that
there were different learning pathways. There are people from various backgrounds earning this
degree, so it makes sense to narrow it down so that people can focus on their specific line
of work.”

Learning outcomes
Online learning engagement
We asked interviewees from both courses to report the factors that contributed to their engage-
ment. In particular, we asked the interviewees whether the course design, instructors, learning con-
tent, teaching and learning strategies, and the course activities and assignments contributed to their
online learning engagement. The findings showed that students perceived instructor facilitation
(e.g., “Instructors were always a prompt with their feedback,” Emily), course project (e.g., “I did
find it super helpful that the final project was in parts,” Amelia), and feedback (e.g., “Seeking
feedback from peers and receiving frequent feedback from [instructor], definitely helped me learn
and feel more engaged,” Jennifer) appeared from both courses as engagement factors that contrib-
uted to student learning.
Personalized readings were perceived to be a contributing factor in the personalized course.
Interviewees from this course stated that the readings engaged and motivated them to accomplish
340 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

their learning needs. Emma said, “I like the readings especially to support me … because I see it
so closely aligned with what I want in my career, I really liked the project because I can take
something that we were reading about, and it’d be turn [sic] around and think about what it
would look like in my classroom.”

Perceptions of learning choice

The interviewees reported that the course successfully provided more learning choices that
directed students’ learning toward their interests. Students personalize their learning by selecting
the focus of the course and making progress toward meeting their personal learning goals.
Amelia said, “I’ve done continuing education in my work life, like I said, for seven or eight years;
higher education was spot on for what I needed … it still was absolutely spot on.” Emma said,
“I think it was helpful to me because I could differentiate between what I needed to learn and
what I could learn as an option.” Maya agreed that the course provided learning choices that met
her learning needs “because they were focused … corporate was a pathway, and since that’s
where my job is located.” Anna, a course reflections participant, said, “I think the ability to
choose pathways really helped ensure that I had a group of individuals that I could turn to for
feedback and perspective with experience in my pathway.”
In comparison, some interviewees from the one-size-fits-all course indicated the need to pro-
vide learning choices, whereas others thought the course provided learning choices for them. For
example, Katherine said,
The instructor tried to make this class fit me as far as corporate training, but I never saw the connection. I
never got the connection, so personalized training would be great. Instead of having to follow a specific
curriculum, have options. So I can choose this and this instead of you know … going where I want to go
with it and not just what the school wants me to go with. I think it would be awesome.

However, Kim mentioned that the course project was designed to provide learning choice. She
said, “I think that the three part project, because we were able to choose what we wanted to do,
that free choice allowed me to pick something that was relevant to me.”

Perceptions of learning interest

Supporting students’ interests was one of the ultimate goals of implementing personalized learn-
ing as an instructional approach. Therefore, we examined this theme from both the one-size-fits-
all course and personalized course. The interview results showed that personalized learning
enhanced students’ learning interests when provided learning pathways that included content that
addressed individual learning needs. Amelia said, “My interest level was increased because I’m
already in that area of higher education being in continuing education. My interest level was
piqued.” Emma indicated that the personalized course helped her to follow the pathway that
interests her. She said, “I think I just followed the same pathway that I’m interested in.” David
indicated that the course allowed him to follow the focus he wanted (corporate training):
Well, it allowed me to focus on what I’m familiar with and comfortable at least as a starting point, so it
focused on what I do in my everyday career now, but also it allowed me, by interacting with students who
are on different pathways, it allowed me to explore other ways of looking at the same question.

In comparison, students from the one-size-fits-all course did not report that the course enhanced
their interests. Emily was hoping that the course was aligned with her learning interests, stating,
I really enjoyed when the content … when I had the opportunity to make the content personal for me or I
was able to customize the content for me. I’m interested in science education. I’m also interested in higher
education because I work at a community college, so anytime we could take the content and engage in it in
a way that was personal, that was relatable to me; that’s what really help [sic].
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 341

Perceptions of personal goals

We designed the personalized course to provide the opportunity to all students to meet their own
learning goals. We asked students to set their personal goals during the first week of the course,
and we asked them to reflect upon these goals and whether they met them at the end of the
course. Both interviews and course reflections analysis revealed that almost all students in the
personalized course met their personal goals. Emma and Amelia responded that they met their
learning goals in this course. Maya said, “I think that I met and exceeded my goals for the class
because I see a new and larger picture now of what the 21st Century Classroom will look like
(thinking outside the box).” David stated,
My main goal, overall, is to become a true instructional professional. That means everything from the
analysis phase to the delivery phase and beyond. This course focused on all phases of instruction and taught
me a great deal about each one. The flow of the course, along with the comprehensive project due at the
end, definitely helped with my learning of the material and the important lessons. I have already begun
using some of what we learned in this course, and it’s made me more professional and knowledgeable.

The course reflections participants stated, “I think this course was excellent in helping me achieve
my personal goal, and I am glad I took it” (Samuel), “I do think I’ve succeeded in meeting this
goal as I’ve really learned more about general best practices to encourage learner-centric training”
(Diane), and “I feel what I learned surpassed my goals for this course” (Nicole).

Perceptions of learning control

One of the personalization goals was to enhance students’ learning control and independence
(Bray & McClaskey, 2016; Watson & Watson, 2017). Interviewees from the personalized course
mentioned that this course allowed for more learning control and independence. Emma said,
I definitely feel like I was able to sort of take control of my learnings [sic], to determine how much I
wanted to invest or learn more or dig deeper. I think I had a lot of control for the most part. Obviously, I
could design the project I wanted, do readings that I wanted.

When Maya was asked about controlling her learning in the personalized course, she said, “It
did, because it was very focused on what the needs were within my particular pathway.” David
also agreed that the course provided the opportunity to take control of learning. In comparison,
interviewees from the one-size-fits-all course indicated they had control over their learning out-
come; however, it was through the course project. As indicated previously, interviewees from the
one-size-fits-all course found the course project as supportive for their feeling of autonomy and
allowed them to take control of their learning.

Perceptions of deeper learning

In addition to students’ perceived satisfaction with the course, the students’ reported they learned
more, and more deeply, because of the course design. Specifically, because the personalized course
provided learning pathways to enhance deeper learning (Zheng, 2018), the students were self-
motivated to learn more about the topics with which they were interested. Students’ perceptions
of their deeper learning were positive, and they mentioned that the personalized course assisted
them to learn deeply by (a) directing them to focus on what they needed to learn, (b) aligning
the course content with students’ learning backgrounds and interests, and (c) assisting students to
conceptualize the applications of the course topic in their work context. Emma said,
I’ve really been interested more in authentic learning and then, I think this class, the idea of the partnering
and stuff really started to talk about more of what that looks like. I felt like I was learning about this
more deeply.

Amelia also indicated that she learned deeply in the personalized course, and it occurred
through the course project. As did Maya, who indicated that the personalized course helped her
342 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

learn more deeply: “With deeper learning, I think with that one it’s learning about bringing
new ways to do something with the learner being the focus, and … learning more about the
learner-centered approaches and what way we can engage the learner.” David found the course
focus and structure provided the opportunity to learn deeply and better understand the content.
He explained,
I think it, the course, really dove into the subject matter in a pretty thorough way, and it seemed like we
were going over certain things week after week, but it was progressing as the course went on to really take
a deeper dive into the subtopic … and that helped solidify the understanding of the subject.

One course reflections participant said, “The format of the class allowed me to broaden my hori-
zons while also staying inside of my comfort zone” (Andee).
In the one-size-fits-all course, students did not perceive much deep learning. Many students
mentioned that they did not figure the applications of learner-centered approaches in their con-
texts. Charlotte said, “I still don’t see how this pedagogy would apply to the training I do.”
William said, “I would have loved to have studied more in depth the pedagogies.” Ethan said,
“I think it would be helpful to dove into this [sic] tools a bit more.” Linda said, “I was unduly
stressed attempting to adapt an instructor-led corporate learning course with a partnering peda-
gogy design plan.” Sophia mentioned that she did not find the course helpful for deep learning:
“It felt a bit like I was looking for a needle in a haystack in searching for appropriate tools for
my lesson while at the same time attempting to design a lesson that would work for all
three parts.”
The results of both research questions, research question 1 and research question 2, are pro-
vided in Table 4. Table 4 provides a comparison between the qualitative themes and factors from
both courses, including the major themes and subthemes, and factors based on the two courses:
one-size-fits-all and the personalized course.

Table 4. Comparison between qualitative themes and factors from both courses

Themes and Factors Comparison (Interviews N ¼ 8) (Course Reflections N ¼ 64)

Factors-Subfactors From Factors-Subfactors From
Major Themes Subthemes One-Size-Fits-All- Course Personalized E-Learning Course Data Sources

SDT (Research Feeling of – Course project – Personalized course design Interviews

Question #1) autonomy – Course project – Learning pathways
design – Content alignment
– Instructor support
Feeling of – Course project – Course project Interviews
competence – Flexibility – Flexibility
– Authenticity – Authenticity
– Relevance – Relevance
– Personalized course design
– Learning pathways
– Challenging content
Feeling of – Interaction with – Interaction with instructors Interviews &
relatedness instructors – Lack of interaction between students course reflections
– Lack of interaction
between students
Intrinsic – Instructors’ facilitation – Personalized readings Interviews &
motivation – Curriculum relevance – Curriculum relevance course reflections
Online Course Design Perceived – Students unsatisfied – Personalized learning approach Interviews &
and Instructional learning & with the course content – Learning outcomes course reflections
Approach (Research experiences and course approach – (Learning choice, learning interests,
Question #2) personal goals, learning control, and
deeper learning)
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 343

Discussion and implications

The personalized learning approach derives its principles from theories that support learner control
and independence of learning and focuses on the learner-centered paradigm (Rickabaugh, 2012;
Watson et al., 2012; Watson & Watson, 2017). Personalized learning provides a flexible learning
environment that can be implemented in higher education and in online learning environments
(Redding, 2014). It prioritizes all learners’ needs and interests and allows for tailoring and adjustment
to meet personal learning goals. We designed an online course using personalized learning principles
that were introduced by Watson and Watson (2017) to enhance students’ psychological need satisfac-
tion (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This personalized course provided flexible learning pathways that aligned
with students’ learning needs and interests. We used the previous design of this course, which was a
one-size-fits-all course, as the comparison course for the personalized course (intervention).
From this research, we found that, overall, students in the PL course held positive perceptions
toward the PL course design and felt that this design helped support their feeling of learning
autonomy, increase their feeling of competence, and enhance their intrinsic motivation. However,
we found that the PL course design did not support the feeling of relatedness. The PL course
design also contributed to students’ online learning experiences and learning outcomes by meet-
ing their learning needs and interests. In contrast, students in the one-size-fits-all course had
negative perceptions and felt unsatisfied with the course approach and how their learning needs
and interests were met. These results (positive perceptions of autonomy, competence, and intrin-
sic motivation) are connected to the course design decisions (e.g., personalized learning pathways,
personalized readings, personalized feedback), as shown in Table 1.

Self-determination theory
One of the main purposes of this research was to identify the potential of personalized learning
as an instructional approach to providing learners with relevant and personalized learning experi-
ences that address learners’ interests and needs, better supporting their basic psychological needs
(e.g., feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Theoretically, a personalized instructional approach should lead to an increase in students’
feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which would further affect their intrinsic
motivation, resulting in effective and positive e-learning experiences. These three SDT compo-
nents are additive and correlate with one another to increase or decrease the learners’ intrinsic
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
These findings indicate that both students in the one-size-fits-all course and the personalized
course perceived feelings of autonomy and competence. The course project was well designed in
supporting students to feel autonomous and competent within both courses. However, students
in the one-size-fits-all course stressed the importance of instructor facilitation in tailoring the
course assignments to their interests while still expressing some frustration with the lack of rele-
vance of some course assignments and activities with their personal learning goals. So although
students still perceived competence and autonomy, it was largely reliant on instructor support
rather than the actual course design, and the lack of relevant content was disappointing to stu-
dents. This finding highlights an important implication that, in non-personalized courses, when
given the freedom to do so, instructors can play a large and impactful role in working with stu-
dents to better align course activities to students’ individual needs and goals.
Contrasted with this, students from the personalized course mentioned that the personalized
learning components (e.g., personalized learning pathways, personalized readings, personalized
feedback) were the key factors in their feelings of autonomy and competence. They also stressed
the relevance of the course content in meeting their personal learning goals. We gave students
344 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

the opportunity to think about their learning focus and follow the pathway that best addressed
their learning needs, which supported their feelings of autonomy and competence. This result
aligns with what prior researchers already identified, which indicates that providing personaliza-
tion opportunity, provision of choices, and a relevant curriculum will result in an autonomous-
supported environment (Assor et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2015; Patall et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci,
2000). This indicates that incorporating personalized course components places less focus on the
quality of the instructor, perhaps allowing for more consistent benefits for students or supporting
the promotion of students’ feelings of autonomy and competence, even in structured programs
that allow their instructors less freedom to improvise and alter course activities.
The feeling of relatedness is the feeling of belonging to the social environment (e.g., online
learning) and maintaining a close relationship to other students or instructors in the learning
environment (Garn & Jolly, 2014; Kowal & Fortier, 1999). Rienties, Tempelaar, Van den Bossche,
Gijselaers, and Segers (2009) recommended supporting learner relatedness in online technology-
rich environments to motivate learners and foster educational outcomes. Butz and Stupnisky
(2017) found that using online discussion as an intervention can promote learner relatedness and
improve students’ self-efficacy for developing relatedness with others in the course. An interesting
finding in this study was the lack of perceived relatedness among the students despite very differ-
ent approaches to the online discussion in the personalized and one-size-fits-all courses. For stu-
dents in both courses, they perceived relatedness to their instructor but not to their peers. We
found instructors’ communications through videos recordings to be an effective strategy to support
students’ feeling of relatedness and competence. Instructors from both courses recorded videos to
share the weekly announcements and requirements. Students reported that the videos explained
the assignments and the learning expectations, which enhanced their feeling of relatedness to their
environment and increased their feeling of competence. This result aligns with Howland and
Moore (2002), who suggested that students will feel isolated when they are left without support for
interpreting course assignments. Accordingly, instructors must show interest in supporting stu-
dents’ learning, which will increase their feeling of relatedness (Connell & Wellborn, 1991).
With regard to their fellow students, this sense of relatedness was lacking, regardless of the
course. In the one-size-fits-all course, students felt a bit lost among the larger discussion, and
they had difficulty finding helpful discussion with their peers that support their relatedness. The
personalized course sought to make discussions more personalized by having smaller discussions
among only students who shared the same personalized learning pathway. However, students in
this course noted that the inability to discuss with students from other pathways limited their
opportunities to find other students who provided helpful contributions to the discussion. Thus,
although discussions were more targeted, students did not find them helpful or contributing to a
sense of relatedness. Similarly, Hartnett (2015) found that when students were grouped into small
discussion groups, such as in the personalized learning course in our study, the students lacked
for interaction because the students tended to only interact with students who might work within
their small groups. An implication therefore is that, although personalizing discussions for stu-
dents to increase relevance theoretically aligns with recommendations, restricting discussions to
these smaller groups can actually stifle discussion and a sense of relatedness with other students.
However, having discussions with the larger class as a whole can result in the same lack of
relatedness as well. Designers should consider how to construct an optimal approach that neither
overwhelms students with large numbers of posts that are difficult to digest and connect to nor
restricts their discussion to a smaller group of students, which might therefore limit their access
to quality posts that come from those students outside of their group. Having a learning manage-
ment system that highlights top influencers in the discussion or allows students or instructors to
upvote the discussions that are most impactful and interesting could be a way to highlight the
best discussions and recognize those students making the strongest contributions to the discus-
sion. Likewise, although some discussions might be personalized to improve their relevance, these
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 345

should not entirely replace interaction with the larger class. Future research is needed to better
identify at what point discussion groups become too small or focused to be effective, as well as
how both discussion board features and instructor discussion facilitation can optimize student
interaction and discussion quality to promote learning and student relatedness.

Personalization’s impact on learning and motivation

When examining the perspective of students regarding the personalization of the course, the
results clearly indicated the shortcomings of the one-size-fits-all course when compared to the
personalized course. Students in the one-size-fits-all course consistently noted difficulty and frus-
tration with aligning the course to their personal interests and learning goals. Although the stu-
dents did highlight how their instructors were helpful in trying to help them and also noted that
the ability to choose the topic of the final project allowed them a degree of personalization that
they appreciated, by and large, it was clear that the perceived lack of relevance for students who
were not focused on a K–12 context was problematic for their engagement, motivation, and
learning. These students were largely focused on completing the course to earn the grade and
course credits needed for their degree, but the learning was shallow and largely not relevant to
their future professional practice. Relevant curriculum is a critical factor in online learning envi-
ronments, and students lose interest and motivation when they find the assigned tasks are not
relevant to their learning and to their own lives, which may lead to them failing or dropping
courses (Park & Choi, 2009), which this study’s participants also indicated.
In contrast, the personalized course students highlighted the benefits of personalized readings
and projects, describing how this allowed the course to be highly relevant and aligned with their
personal goals and professional contexts. Although we noted some frustration when discussions
and peer engagement were negatively affected when students found themselves in pathways with
few or no other students, the benefits of the personalized approach to their learning and engage-
ment were clearly reported.
The perceived benefits of having choice over their own learning aligns with prior research that
supporting student choice enhances their learning control and increases their psychological need
satisfaction, especially in regard to feelings of autonomy and competence (Cordova & Lepper,
1996). Similarly research has shown that aligning learning content with student interests results
in better learning (Bernacki & Walkington, 2018; Hidi, 1990; Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992;
Walkington, 2013), engagement (Ainley et al., 2002), motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and
increases in cognitive and affective functioning (Ainley et al., 2002). This study contributes to
what the personalized learning literature suggests: providing personalized instruction and experi-
ences support and enhance students’ learning control and independence (Barr & Tagg, 1995;
Demski, 2012; Watson & Watson, 2017) while facilitating information processing and deeper
learning (Zheng, 2018).
The participants perceived this course to be effective in meeting their learning needs and pro-
viding instructional content that aligned with their learning choices and interests. The results
indicate that the personalized course students’ perceived that their interest was enhanced, and
they were engaged during the course. The findings thus suggest that students from different
learning backgrounds, different focuses, and different learning needs could benefit from a course
personalized to learners’ needs and interests.

Personalized course design and the role of technology integration

Personalizing an online course requires an understanding of students’ needs and interests so the
course parameters and objectives can better be aligned to meet those interests. In this study, the
focus of personalization was on aligning the course topic and content toward students’ needs and
346 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

interests using a personalized to learners strategy (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Rickabaugh, 2012). The
design and implementation of personalized learning as an instructional approach was based on
learner analysis decisions. Therefore, replicating the personalized learning approach investigated
in this study in other courses requires further research to explore the potential of implementation
to provide personalization opportunities within different courses and different higher education
levels. Online learning instructors could benefit from the study’s findings through replicating the
model presented and designing, developing, and implementing personalized courses that provide
students with more learning choices and some degree of learning control. Instructors could pro-
vide multiple learning pathways in courses that have potential students with different learning
backgrounds, needs, and interests to provide learners with the needed skills and competencies
that align with their learning focus. This replication could be implemented in online courses,
MOOCS, as well as face-to-face courses.
We suggest that when designing online courses, instructors and designers should implement
personalized learning principles in the design and development process to provide online courses
that are personalized toward individuals’ learning needs and interests. Some potential design
strategies include providing options for students to choose (e.g., pathways or tracks) that allow
them to explore content relevant to their learning interests or offering online discussion activities
(e.g., in learning management systems (LMSs), on social media platforms) that allow students to
interact with peers who share similar interests. Digital resources can be integrated to enrich indi-
vidual learning experience based on their interests. Another strategy implemented in this study
was supporting personalization in online learning through an “online course content repository”
that allows learners to browse and select the needed course content, instead of providing fixed
content for all learners. Finally, web-based technologies such as digital learning resources (e.g.,
blogs, wiki, web publishing, e-portfolios) could aid in implementing personalized learning in an
online learning environment.
Without advanced technology that supports personalization of instruction toward the learner
needs (e.g., adaptive learning technology), it is important to conduct learner analysis to under-
stand all students’ needs and interests within the course parameters and objectives. Then, instruc-
tional designers should identify the personalization strategy (e.g., personalizing to the learner,
personalizing with the learner, personalizing by the learner) to design and prepare the pathways
that might serve learners’ needs within the course. Within the personalized pathways, content can
be tailored toward learners’ needs. Instructors can then integrate a variety of technologies that
support the learner-centered environment to enhance and support the personalized environment.
Designers and instructors could also offer students the option to determine the pace of their
learning within a specified course. Another instructional decision implemented in this study was
allowing students to develop assessments of their learning.
Personalization through LMSs sometimes can be challenging. However, learner-centered tech-
nology platforms (e.g., adaptive technology, competency-based technology platforms) could be
integrated to provide opportunities for learners to personalize their learning through creating
learning pathways and learning profiles that facilitate best learning practices. Authoring software
might enrich personalization in online learning environments. Designers could develop online
learning content that allows learners to customize the content and show real-time progress to
provide learners with the opportunity to navigate their learning toward mastery and allow
instructors to observe and mentor students’ learning without intervening in their independent
learning (Matuk, Linn, & Eylon, 2015).

Limitations
There are limitations to both this research study and to the development of a personalized online
course. The first limitation of the personalized learning course was the incorporation of
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 347

personalized learning components (“instruction that is paced to learning needs, tailored to learn-
ing preferences, and tailored to the specific interests of different learners”) rather than designing
a fully personalized online course from scratch. The program standards and requirements limited
the course design to time-based progression, which limits one to designing an online course that
is more self-paced. The second limitation to personalizing the online courses was implementing
this approach without the assistance of advanced technology platforms that support greater per-
sonalization (Watson & Watson, 2017) because the course was hosted on a standard CMS that
does not provide personalized learning features. Third, designing and implementing a personal-
ized online course is not an easy task and requires additional time and effort on the part of
instructional designers and instructors seeking to implement similar approaches in their
own courses.
In regard to the limitations of the study and its methods, the results were based on student
perceptions of their learning rather than more objective measures. Additionally, the participants
were instructional design students familiar with the concept of personalized learning, which could
have affected their responses to the PL implementation in an online learning environment.
Additionally, the results were not fully triangulated because some implications relied only on one
data source (interview). Finally, the implications of this study are based on a specific course
design offered in a specific program; therefore, although they may be beneficial to informing
others’ efforts in designing more personalized online courses in their own contexts, they are not
broadly generalizable across all contexts.

Conclusion and directions for future research

In this study, we investigated the potential of personalized learning as an instructional approach
in online learning courses. We designed an online course using personalized learning principles
to align the content and assignments with students’ learning goals and interests to support stu-
dents’ psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, we applied an SDT
framework to investigating students’ psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. We
also investigated students’ perceptions of their experiences in the personalized course and com-
pared the results with students’ perceptions in the one-size-fits-all course.
Through this study, we add to the literature the idea that implementing personalized learning
principles in online learning courses can support students’ perceived psychological need satisfac-
tion (autonomy and competence), increase students’ perceived intrinsic motivation, and enhance
students’ perceived learning engagement, leading to positive online learning outcomes. Overall,
the personalized learning interventions enhanced students’ learning needs and interests, allowing
for more learning control and leading to students’ increased interest in learning and understand-
ing the course topics.
The results of this personalized learning instructional intervention indicated that supporting
the three basic needs could enhance students’ intrinsic motivation and support well-being within
the social learning environment (Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, &
Turner, 2004). Lack of interaction remains as an issue in personalized courses, and students felt
that their interaction with one another was low. Online discussion boards did not help in sup-
porting the students’ interactions and feeling of relatedness in these online courses. Students felt
that their interactions with their peers lacked meaning in both courses, and they did not feel
engaged in discussions (Howland & Moore, 2002).
Little empirical research has been conducted to investigate the effect of personalized learning
as an instructional approach on students’ motivation and psychological need satisfaction within
online learning courses. We recommend further investigation of online course personalization to
extend the knowledge of implementing PL in online learning. In addition, self-directed learning
should be investigated because it is a critical skill for learners in personalized learning courses.
348 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

Moreover, personalized learning challenges should be studied and addressed to achieve a person-
alized course design that can be applied in online learning courses. Finally, this study could not
provide a fully personalized online course that allows students to progress on their own time
(e.g., self-pacing). We further recommend that this obstacle be addressed to allow students to
fully control their learning to better support their learning choices, interests, and needs and align
with their learning backgrounds in future studies.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Learning Design and Technology Program at Purdue University for support-
ing this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The authors would like to thank the Research Center for the Humanities, Deanship of Scientific Research at King
Saud University, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research (Group No. RG-1441-345).

Notes on contributors
Hamdan A. Alamri is an Assistant Professor in Learning Design and Technology at King Saud University. His
research interest focuses on the systemic change of education toward learner-centered environments. He designs
personalized learning environments and integrate learner-centered technologies to motivate and engage learners in
K-12 and Higher Education.

Victoria L. Lowell teaches and completes research in online and blended learning using instructional methods and
technologies to improve learner self-efficacy and motivation. She currently serves as Past-President of the Distance
Learning division of the Association of Educational Communication and Technologies (AECT) and she is the
Chair-Elect/Program-Chair for the Instructional Technology SIG of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA).

William R. Watson’s research interest focuses on the critical, systemic change of education to realize a learner-cen-
tered paradigm, including the application of technology such as video games, virtual environments, and learning
management software in order to create customized and personalized learning Environments.

Dr. Sunnie Lee Watson teaches and conducts scholarly work in the field of personalized, learner-centered para-
digm of education. Her areas of research focus on attitudinal learning and mindset change for social justice in
both formal and informal educational settings, personalized online instruction and innovative educational technol-
ogies, and critical systems thinking for educational change.

ORCID
Hamdan Alamri http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8350-4383
Victoria Lowell http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-5304
William Watson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0587-6947
Sunnie Lee Watson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2998-9900

References
Ainley, M. D., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological processes that mediate their
relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 349

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and sup-
pressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(2), 261–278.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26. 10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672.
Bernacki, M. L., & Walkington, C. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 110(6), 864–881. 10.1037/edu0000250.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2016). How to personalize learning: A practical guide for getting started and going
deeper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Butz, N. T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2017). Improving student relatedness through an online discussion intervention:
The application of self-determination theory in synchronous hybrid programs. Computers & Education, 114,
117–138. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.006
Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self- determination theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-
system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota sympo-
sia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determin-
ation of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). An Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective.
In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Learning
and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165–183. 10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90013-8.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determin-
ation perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 325–346. doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
Demski, J. (2012). This time it’s personal: True student-centered learning has a lot of support from education lead-
ers, but it can’t really happen without all the right technology infrastructure to drive it and the technology just
may be ready to deliver on its promise. The Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 39(1), 32–36.
Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). A practical guide to teaching self-determination.
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Foss, K. A., Foss, S. K., Paynton, S., & Hahn, L. (2014). Increasing college retention with a personalized system of
instruction: A case study. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 5, 1–20.
Garn, A. C., & Jolly, J. L. (2014). High ability students’ voice on learning motivation. Journal of Advanced
Academics , 25(1), 7–24. 10.1177/1932202X13513262.
Garrick, B., Pendergast, D., & Geelan, D. (2017). Introduction to the philosophical arguments underpinning per-
sonalised education. In B. Garrick, D. Pendergast & D. Geelan (Eds.), Theorising personalised education (pp.
1–16). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2700-0
Hartnett, M. (2015). Influences that undermine learners’ perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness in
an online context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 86–99. doi:10.14742/ajet.1526
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research,
60(4), 549–571. 10.3102/00346543060004549.
Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in internet-based courses. Distance
Education, 23(2), 183–195. 10.1080/0158791022000009196.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from self- determination the-
ory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 355–368. doi:10.1080/00224549909598391
350 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (Eds.). (1992). Interest, learning and development. The role of interest in
learning and development (pp. 3–25), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, E., Pate, J. A., & Cozart, D. (2015). Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends, 59(4), 54–61. doi:10.
1007/s11528-015-0871-9
Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. (2002). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning appli-
cation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 423–439. doi:10.2190/0LW0-KE8X-MDYH-X27F
Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student
work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43(2), 229–257. 10.1007/s11251-
014-9338-1.
McCombs, B. L. (2008). From one-size-fits-all to personalized learner-centered learning: The evidence. The FM
Duffy Reports, 13(2), 1–12.
McCombs, B. L. (2013). The learner-centered model: From the vision to the future. In J. H. D. Cornelius-White,
R. Motschnig-Pitrik, & M. Lux (Eds.), Interdisciplinary handbook of the person centered approach: Connections
beyond psychotherapy (pp. 83–113). New York, NY: Springer.
New Media Consortium. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016. Higher Education Edition. Retrieved from https://
www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2016-higher-education-edition/
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-
determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. doi:10.1177/
1477878509104318
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41(1),
105–121. 10.1007/s11135-005-1098-1.
Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learn-
ing. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
jeductechsoci.12.4.207
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the class-
room. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. doi:10.1037/a0019545
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (7th ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
Redding, S. (2014). Personal competencies in personalized learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Center on
Innovations in Learning.
Rickabaugh, J. (2012). Learning Independence Continuum. The Institute for Personalized Learning. Retrieved from
https://cesa1transformation.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/learning-independence- continuum/
Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2009). The role of academic motiv-
ation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1195–1206. 10.1016/j.
chb.2009.05.012.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Salda~na, J. (2016). Goodall’s verbal exchange coding: An overview and example. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(1), 36–39.
10.1177/1077800415603395.
Sota, M. S. (2016). Flipped learning as a path to personalization. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.),
Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp. 73–87). Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom:
Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2
Sural, I., & Yazici, M. (2018). Learner performance and satisfaction level in personalized learning environments. In
R. Zheng (Ed.), Digital technologies and instructional design for personalized learning (pp. 55–79). Hershey PA,
USA: IGI Global.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Office
of Educational Technology, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education.
Office of Educational Technology, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 351

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Walkington, C. A. (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. 10.1037/a0031882.
Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2017). Principles for personalized instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, &
R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models, volume IV: The learner-centered paradigm of educa-
tion. (pp. 93–120). New York, NY: Routledge.
Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2012). A systemic integration of technology for new-paradigm
education. Educational Technology, 52(5), 25–29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430074.
Wolf, M. (2010). Innovate to education: System [re]design for personalized learning. A report from the 2010 sympo-
sium. Washington, DC: Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved from http://siia.net/pli/presenta-
tions/PerLearnPaper.pdf
Wolper, J. (2016). Student-driven personalized learning is trending in higher education. Talent Development,
70(11), 64–65. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1855803058?accountid=44936
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 10(2), 71–83. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.2.71
Zheng, R. (Ed.). (2018). Digital technologies and instructional design for personalized learning. Hershey PA, USA:
IGI Global.

Appendix A. Interview Protocol

Exploratory Questions:
1. Tell me about yourself.
2. What are your dreams for your career?
3. How would you describe yourself as an online learner?
4. Describe your learning approach in online courses?
5. What are some challenges you have faced as a learner in higher education? How about in online learning in particular?
6. What helps you succeed as an online learner?
7. How have instructors helped you engage with online learning?
8. What role do peers play in online learning?
9. What role does instructional content play in online learning?
10. Can you describe your learning experience in the EDCI 568 course?

Motivation, Demotivation, and Engagement:

1. Were there any motivating factors for you in this course?
a. What were those factors?
b. How were these factors motivating for you?

2. Were there any factors in the EDCI 568 course you found engaging?
a. What were those factors?
b. How were these factors engaging for you?

3. Were there any factors of the course that were demotivating to you?
a. What were those factors?
b. How were these factors demotivating for you?

Self-Determination Theory Questions: Terms and Definitions: During this part of the interview, I am going to provide you
with a few terms and their definitions and then ask you a few questions related to those terms.

1. Term and definition: Autonomy is a term that refers to the feeling that you have control over your learning and you are
an independent and self-regulated learner.
a. Do you think that the EDCI 568 course supported this feeling and allowed you to take control of your learning and
to be an independent and self-regulated learner?
b. How did the EDCI 568 course support or how did the EDCI 568 course not support your control and independence
of learning?

(continued)
352 H. ALAMRI ET AL.

2. Term and definition: Feeling of competence refers to feeling confident in your capacities and abilities to work in an
environment.
a. Do you think the EDCI 568 course supported your feelings of competence when working on the course activities
and assignments?
b. How did the EDCI 568 course support or how did the EDCI 568 course not support your feeling of competence?

3. Term and definition: Feeling of relatedness refers to feelings of belonging to an environment and connected with others
in the course.
a. Do you feel that the EDCI 568 course supported your feeling relatedness (belonging and connected)?
b. How did the EDCI 568 course or did not support your feeling of relatedness?
c. Were there any activities that helped you to feel related to the instructor? To classmates? To the world
around you?

Personalized Learning:
1. Term and definition: personalized learning refers to instruction in which the pace of learning and the instructional
approach are optimized for the needs of each learner. Learning objectives, instructional approaches, and instructional
content (and its sequencing) all may vary based on learner needs. In addition, learning activities are meaningful and
relevant to learners, driven by their interests, and often self-initiated.
a. What do you think about the term “personalized learning”?
b. What do you think about the term personalized learning in formal education?
c. What do you think about the term personalized learning in online learning?

Experience With Personalized Learning Course: (Experimental Group Only) You already responded to 11 questions about
your personalized learning in the EDCI 568 course, and here are several questions that will rely on those responses:
1. How did you learn what you needed from the 568 course?
2. You said this course did/did not help you learn deeply; can you explain that further?
3. Can you think of the course activities or teaching strategies that supported your learning preferences (e.g., videos,
readings, weekly discussions, individual project)?
4. What do you think about the feedback that was provided in this course?
5. Did you find that the course components were personalized to your learning needs?
6. How did the personalized learning options in this course meet/or not meet your learning choices and interests?
7. You mentioned that you liked/disliked the four pathways design; can you explain why you liked/disliked this design?
8. How did the course content align with your personal goals?
9. Did this course help you take control of your learning? How?
10. Did you meet your personal goals for learning during this course?

Appendix B. Definitions

Terminology Definition

Personalized Learning Personalized learning refers to “instruction in which the pace of learning and the instructional
approach are optimized for the needs of each learner. Learning objectives, instructional
approaches, and instructional content (and its sequencing) all may vary based on learner
needs. In addition, learning activities are meaningful and relevant to learners, driven by their
interests, and often self-initiated” (Department of Education Office of Educational
Technology, 2016).
Self-Determination Theory Per SDT, an “understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate
psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 227).
Self-Determination Self-determination was defined as a combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a
person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, and autonomous behavior (Field
et al., 1998).
Autonomy Autonomy refers to “being self-initiating and self-regulating of one’s own actions” (Deci et al.,
1991, p. 327).
Competence Competence refers to “feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment
and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities” (Deci & Ryan, 2002,
p. 7).
Relatedness Relatedness refers to “developing secure and satisfying connections with others in one’s social
milieu” (Deci et al., 1991, p. 327).
Intrinsic Motivation Intrinsic motivation refers to behaviors controlled by internal reward, such as desire to learn for
the sake of self-satisfaction. People who are intrinsically motivated have behaviors that they
“are engaged in for their own sake, for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from their
performance” (Deci et al., 1991, p. 328).