Motivating Students by “Personalizing” Learning Around Individual Interests: A Consideration of Theory, Design and Implementation Issues

Abstract Purpose As educators seek ways to enhance student motivation and improve achievement, promising advances are being made in adaptive approaches to instruction. Learning technologies are emerging that promote a high level of personalization of the learning experience. One type of personalization is context personalization, in which instruction is presented in the context of learners’ individual interests in areas like sports, music, and video games. Personalized contexts may elicit situational interest, which can in turn spur motivational and metacognitive states like positive affect and focused attention. Personalized contexts may also allow for concepts to become grounded in prior knowledge by fostering connections to everyday activity. In this Chapter, we discuss the theoretical, design, and implementation issues to consider when creating interventions that utilize context personalization to enhance motivation. Design/methodology/approach First, we provide an overview of context personalization as an instructional principle and outline the emerging evidence that personalization can enhance motivation and improve achievement. We then discuss the theory hypothesized to account for the effectiveness of context personalization and discuss the approaches to personalization interventions. We close by discussing some of the practical issues to consider when bridging the design and implementation of personalization interventions. Throughout the paper, we anchor our discussion to our own research which focuses on the use of context personalization in middle and high school mathematics. Findings The theoretical mechanisms through which context personalization enhances learning may include (1) eliciting positive affective reactions to the instruction, (2) fostering feelings of value for the instructional content through connections to valued personal interests, or (3) drawing upon prior funds of knowledge of the topic. We provide hypotheses for the relatedness of context personalization to triggering and maintaining situational interest, and explore potential drawbacks of personalization, considering research on seductive details, desirable difficulties, and authenticity of connections to prior knowledge. We further examine four approaches to personalized learning – “fill-in-the-blank” personalization, matching instruction to individual topic interests, group-level personalization, and utility-value interventions. These approaches vary in terms of the depth of the personalization – whether simple, shallow connections are made to interest topics, or deep, meaningful connections are made to learners’ actual experiences. The consideration of depth also interacts with grain size – whether content is personalized based on the broader interests of a group, or the individual experiences of a particular learner. And finally, personalization interventions can have different levels of ownership – an instructor can generate the personalized connections, the connections can be made by the curriculum designers, or learners can take an active role in personalizing their own learning. Finally, we discuss the practical implementation issues when bringing context personalization interventions into K-12 classrooms. Personalization can be logistically difficult to implement, given that learners hold a diverse array of interests, and may experience each of those interests differently. In addition, particular types of instructional content may show greater sensitivity when personalization is implemented, and personalization may be most helpful for learners with certain background characteristics. Originality/value Realizing the promise of personalized learning is an unsolved problem in education whose solution becomes ever more critical as we confront a new digital age. Context personalization has the potential to bring together several well-established strands of research on improving student learning – research on the development of interest, funds of knowledge, and utility value – into one powerful intervention.

[1]  S. Hidi,et al.  The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development , 2006 .

[2]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research , 2001 .

[3]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Trade-Offs Between Grounded and Abstract Representations: Evidence From Algebra Problem Solving , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  Interest and Its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning , 1990 .

[5]  Jennifer A. Kaminski,et al.  The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Chapter 7: "Putting Things into Words": The Development of 12-15-Year-Old Students' Interest for Writing , 2006 .

[7]  R. Reber,et al.  Effects of Example Choice on Interest, Control, and Learning , 2009 .

[8]  Milan Sherman,et al.  Personalized learning in algebra , 2014 .

[9]  Maxine Eskénazi,et al.  Personalization of Reading Passages Improves Vocabulary Acquisition , 2010, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[10]  J. Harackiewicz,et al.  HARNESSING VALUES TO PROMOTE MOTIVATION IN EDUCATION. , 2014, Advances in motivation and achievement : a research annual.

[11]  Chris S. Hulleman,et al.  Promoting Interest and Performance in High School Science Classes , 2009, Science.

[12]  Mary Q. Foote,et al.  Promoting equity in mathematics teacher preparation: a framework for advancing teacher learning of children’s multiple mathematics knowledge bases , 2012 .

[13]  R. Schmidt,et al.  New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training , 1992 .

[14]  A. Corbett,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Cognitive Tutors , 2005 .

[15]  Noriyuki Inoue,et al.  The Realistic Reasons behind Unrealistic Solutions: The Role of Interpretive Activity in Word Problem Solving. , 2005 .

[16]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. , 1992 .

[17]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations , 2005, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[18]  Chris S. Hulleman,et al.  Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. , 2010 .

[19]  M. Lepper,et al.  Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. , 1996 .

[20]  Ozlem Cakir,et al.  A comparative analysis of the effects of computer and paper-based personalization on student achievement , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[21]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  The Role of Rewording and Context Personalization in the Solving of Mathematical Word Problems. , 1991 .

[22]  A. Petrosino,et al.  "Playing the game" of story problems: Coordinating situation-based reasoning with algebraic representation , 2012 .

[23]  Lynda R. Wiest,et al.  Impact of Personalization of Mathematical Word Problems on Student Performance , 2004 .

[24]  Candace Walkington,et al.  Supporting Algebraic Reasoning through Personalized Story Scenarios: How Situational Understanding Mediates Performance , 2013 .

[25]  Howard J. Sullivan,et al.  Effect of personalization of instructional context on the achievement and attitudes of hispanic students , 1992 .

[26]  Ulrich Schiefele,et al.  Interest, Learning, and Motivation , 1991 .

[27]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: when students "game the system" , 2004, CHI.

[28]  Luis C. Moll,et al.  Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms , 1992 .

[29]  Daniel Chazan,et al.  On teachers' mathematical knowledge and student exploration: A personal story about teaching a technologically supported approach to school algebra , 1999, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[30]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[31]  J. Eccles Expectancies, values and academic behaviors , 1983 .

[32]  Gordon Ellis,et al.  Grand challenges for engineering , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[33]  J. Harackiewicz,et al.  Motivating the Academically Unmotivated: A Critical Issue for the 21st Century , 2000 .

[34]  Candace Walkington,et al.  Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. , 2013 .

[35]  Valerie Walkerdine,et al.  Playing The Game , 2006 .

[36]  E. Kazemi Exploring test performance in mathematics: the questions children’s answers raise , 2002 .

[37]  Matthew L. Bernacki,et al.  Students authoring personalized “algebra stories”: Problem-posing in the context of out-of-school interests , 2015 .

[38]  M. Mitchell Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. , 1993 .

[39]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[40]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[41]  M. Peters,et al.  Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology , 2011 .

[42]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Toward Meta-cognitive Tutoring: A Model of Help Seeking with a Cognitive Tutor , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[43]  S. Hidi,et al.  Student Interest and Achievement: Developmental Issues Raised by a Case Study , 2002 .

[44]  Helen Cooper THE WORD AND THE WORLD , 2009 .

[45]  Pei-Lin Liu,et al.  Personalized Computer-Assisted Mathematics Problem-Solving Program and Its Impact on Taiwanese Students , 2007 .

[46]  A. Collins,et al.  Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. Technology, Education--Connections (TEC) Series. , 2009 .

[47]  Jinfa Cai,et al.  Problem-posing research in mathematics education: new questions and directions , 2013, Educational Studies in Mathematics.

[48]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007 , 2007 .

[49]  J. Harackiewicz,et al.  Different Strokes for Different Folks: How Individual Interest Moderates the Effects of Situational Factors on Task Interest. , 2007 .

[50]  S. Hidi Interest, Reading, and Learning: Theoretical and Practical Considerations , 2001 .

[51]  Jessica Bachrach,et al.  Going Beyond the “Whoa! That’s Cool!” of Inquiry: Achieving Science Interest and Learning with the ICAN Intervention , 2014 .

[52]  Cecily Heiner,et al.  Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: the importance of who, why and how , 2011 .

[53]  J. Spence,et al.  Achievement and achievement motives : psychological and sociological approaches , 1984 .

[54]  K. A. Renninger,et al.  Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems , 2002 .

[55]  H. Sullivan,et al.  Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan , 2000 .

[56]  M. Maehr Advances in Motivation and Achievement , 1991 .

[57]  K. E. Barron,et al.  The Role of Achievement Goals in the Development of Interest: Reciprocal Relations Between Achievement Goals, Interest, and Performance , 2008 .