10 1016@j Edurev 2020 100339

Journal Pre-proof
Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis
Ling Zhang, James D. Basham, Sohyun Yang
PII: S1747-938X(19)30648-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100339
Reference: EDUREV 100339
To appear in: Educational Research Review
Received Date: 23 December 2019

Revised Date: 23 April 2020
Accepted Date: 23 May 2020
Please cite this article as: Zhang, L., Basham, J.D., Yang, S., Understanding the implementation
of personalized learning: A research synthesis, Educational Research Review (2020), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100339.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Author Statement
Ling Zhang: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing-Original draft

preparation, Writing-Review & Editing, Methodology
James Basham: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing-Original draft preparation
Sohyun Yang: Methodology, Validation
Understanding the Implementation of Personalized Learning: A Research Synthesis
Ling Zhang, James D. Basham, and Sohyun Yang
Department of Special Education, University of Kansas
1450 Jayhawk Blvd, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, United States
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ling Zhang, Doctoral
Candidate, Department of Special Education, University of Kansas. E-mail address: elainezhang-
86@ku.edu; Phone number: 785-840-7898; Postal address: Joseph R. Pearson Hall, University of
Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd, Lawrence, KS, 66045-3101, USA.
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Running head: RESEARCH ON PERSONALIZED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION 1

RESEARCH ON PERSONALIZED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION 2
Abstract
Personalized learning (PL) has been promoted as a major aim and reform effort across the
contemporary education system. In this article, we systematically identified and synthesized 71
empirical studies associated with the implementation of PL that were conducted between 2006
and 2019. This synthesis examined the current research efforts on the PL implementation with a
focus on the primary purposes, overall methodological characteristics, and associated student
learning outcomes of the identified studies. Using the method of critical interpretive synthesis,
we identified two overarching themes in relation to PL across various disciplines of study. The
two themes included investigating (a) the role of varying technologies and (b) contextual factors
that impacted the implementation of PL. However, few studies have examined the effects of PL
as a whole-school initiative on student educational outcomes. We ended by discussing the issues
with the conceptualization and empirical evidence of PL and providing implications for the
future advancement of the field.
Keywords: personalized learning; interdisciplinary inquiry; technology; learner
variability
1. Introduction
The concept of personalized learning (PL) has recently emerged as a major aim in the
education system. Historically, personalized learning can be traced back to John Dewey’s long-
standing work of advocating for placing learners at the center of education in the early 20th
century (Keefe & Jenkins, 2008; Redding, 2016). Later, the concept started taking shape when
education reformers began to denounce the standardized approach to the industrialized education
system and sought various methods to address student diversity (Redding, 2016). For instance,
the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) introduced by Fred Keller in 1968, which
emphasized student self-pacing, mastery-learning, and small-group tutoring, is an example of
early initiatives to implement personalized approaches to instruction and often considered as a
precursor of PL (Keefe & Jenkins, 2008; Keller, 1968). While hints of more personalized
approaches can be found in various fields of practice (e.g., special education, individualized
instruction, educational technology), the true premise of PL has remained relatively elusive at
scale (Basham, Hall, Stahl, & Carter, 2017).
Most recently, education systems across the globe including the United Kingdom, the
United States, Finland, and Canada are making efforts to personalize learning in hopes of
addressing increasing student diversity and providing quality education for all students (Peterson,
2016). In the United Kingdom, PL became the official government policy in 2004 as an attempt
to tailor education to the individual needs of students (Campbell, Robinson, Neelands, Hewston,
& Mazzoli, 2007). The U.K. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) identified assessment
for learning, effective teaching and learning, flexible curriculum and choice, student-centered
school organizations, and activities beyond the school as five broad components of PL (Sebba,
Brown, Steward, Galton, & James, 2007). In the United States, the most recent federal education
law—the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015)—encourages schools to increase the access
to rigorous, personalized learning for all learners. The regulations in ESSA highlight the
importance for state and local education agencies to develop innovative learning environments
that are personalized to each student’s needs while making use of modern technology, adopting
flexible instructional practices, and demonstrating alignment to the Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) framework (ESSA, 2015).
The ever-increasing demand for education reform has urged an increasing number of
schools to move toward PL systems (Basham, Hall, Carter, & Stahl, 2016; Bingham, Pane,
Steiner, & Hamilton, 2016). Advocates for PL have argued that students, including students with
diverse learning needs and disabilities, could achieve higher levels of learning if they receive
personalized instruction and supports tailored to their unique needs and building on their
strengths (Jones & Casey, 2015). While the premise of PL is to transform traditional education
systems and provide more equitable outcomes for all learners, its implementation and research
are still in its infancy.
The contemporary understanding of PL emerges from integrated advancements across
educational research, learning sciences, data and computer sciences, and technology innovation
(Basham et al., 2017; Zhao, Tavangar, McCarren, Rshaid, & Tucker, 2016). Researchers from
across these fields have conducted siloed, collaborative, and interdisciplinary studies to
investigate the design and potential impacts of PL. Both continuous research and new
understandings have supported the ability to develop and scale systems that implement PL across
diverse student populations in a variety of settings (see Arroyo et al., 2014; Basham et al., 2016;
Robinson & Sebba, 2010; Walkington, 2013). For instance, as educational researchers, Basham
et al. (2016) found that PL environments across an entire reform district supported better than
expected outcomes in student growth. In another example, researchers from across various
disciplines conducted research on an adaptive mathematics tutoring application that integrated
strategies and system features to support advanced PL and individual needs (Arroyo et al., 2014).
The results of the Arroyo et al. (2014) study showed that learning outcomes, motivation, and
metacognitive skills were improved for participants who used the system.
While various modern educational initiatives and policies call for researchers from
different fields to collaborate closely and conduct interdisciplinary research on PL (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016), little understanding is shared across these fields of research.
Thus, a clearer understanding of the characteristics of current PL research across disciplines
could yield new and broader insights into each discipline and propel the research forward
through collaboration. For instance, while most research in education and learning sciences
focuses on the interaction among learning environments, educators, and students, research in
computer science is focused on advanced learning technologies, data, or machine learning
systems that provide foundational elements of these interactions (Basham et al., 2017).
Given the increased desire for PL and its inherent relationship across various disciplines,
it is necessary to understand the extant literature across these fields of study. Thus, the intent of
this research synthesis is to provide a grounded understanding of the current literature base
across the areas of educational research, learning sciences, computer science, and information
science as well as to encourage further research in PL. Three primary research questions guide
this work:
1) How is the implementation of PL being researched across disciplines of study?

2) What are the primary characteristics of the current PL implementation research?
3) What are the measured student educational outcomes in the current PL implementation
research?
2. Method
The research questions were formulated to guide a comparative analysis of studies from
across disciplines to inform PL implementation as an emergent educational phenomenon.
Addressing these questions would help yield a new understanding of research themes or trends in
the extant literature of PL. In order to maximize such an understanding, this review was
conducted utilizing the method of critical interpretive synthesis (CIS; Dixon-Woods, Bonas, et
al., 2006; Dixon-Woods, Cavers, et al., 2006). CIS involves an iterative approach to synthesize
both qualitative and quantitative evidence from a diverse literature base with the purpose of
generating theory, evidence-based practice, and/or new conceptualization of a topic of interest
through an interpretive process (Dixon-Woods, Bonas, et al., 2006; Flemming, 2010). A CIS
review tends to avoid specifying concepts in advance, aiming to prioritize the process of
generating conceptualizations or theories rather than aggregating evidence for a well-defined
concept as in other systematic literature review techniques (Dixon-Woods, Cavers, et al., 2006).
This feature of CIS allowed us to explore the implementation of PL as a broadly-defined concept
in a diverse body of interdisciplinary literature.
CIS uses a purposive sampling technique to select papers from a large literature base and
then a theoretical sampling to analyze and elaborate on the emerging codes and categories
(Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009). Dixon-Woods, Bonas, and colleagues (2006) proposed a two-
pronged approach to quality: excluding studies deemed to be “fatally flawed” and interpreting
credibility and contribution of studies included in the review. Data analysis conducted in a CIS
review consists of four key processes, including carefully inspecting the included studies,
systematically identifying recurring themes, iteratively specifying the categories emerging from
the data to explain the phenomenon being described in the literature, and developing a critically
informed integration of evidence from across the studies (Dixon-Woods, Bonas, et al., 2006).
For this review, CIS was used to synthesize an expected complex body of both qualitative
and quantitative evidence pertaining to the implementation of PL from different disciplines.
Given the emergence of PL being a relatively new field with limited research, this review did not
apply the sampling technique to select papers as suggested by Dixon-Woods, Cavers, et al.
(2006). Instead, we identified all potentially relevant papers to provide a comprehensive picture
of the current research efforts on the implementation of PL. To extract data from the diverse
body of literature, we created a coding sheet based on the three overarching research questions
(detailed description was provided in the Coding Procedures section). The CIS approach
directed our focus to identifying themes (i.e., research trends and characteristics associated with
PL implementation) emerging from the extracted data and iteratively specifying relationships
between them. The iterative analysis process enabled us to critically interpret PL
implementation from different aspects and form a more unified understanding of its association
with student educational outcomes.
2.1. Literature search procedures
Extant literature was gathered by searching four databases: ERIC, OmniFile Full Text
Select, Academic Search Complete, and Web of Science. The search results were examined for
articles that reported studies that used empirical data to explore PL in PK-12 educational
settings. We entered various search terms (i.e., learning, e-learning, distance learning, online
learning, education, online education, distance education, instruction) with the word personalize
and personalized as the prefix. Three combinations of keywords were also used (i.e.,
personalization and learning, personalization and education, personalization and instruction).
The terms “personalise”, “personalised” and “personalisation”, which are British spellings for
“personalize”, “personalized”, and “personalization”, were also utilized as alternatives in each
search term or combination. Limiters, such as PK-12 educational settings, English written
article, peer-reviewed journal, and publication date range, were applied to narrow down the
initial search results. Two rounds of search were conducted in 2018 and 2020, respectively. The
first round searched articles published between January 2006 and December 2017, which yielded
258 articles in ERIC, 202 in OmniFile Full-Text Select, 798 in Academic Search Complete, and
272 in Web of Science. To update the literature base, we adopted the same literature search and
screening procedures to search for PL implementation studies published in 2018 and 2019. The
second round of literature search yielded 165 articles in ERIC and Academic Search Complete
and 436 in Web of Science.1 In sum, the two rounds of search process yielded a total of 2131
potential studies for further screening.
2.2. Application of inclusion and exclusion criteria
Articles from the initial search were included if they met the following criteria. First, the
study was an empirical investigation with actual reported data from “real-world” students and
teachers in schools or learning environments associated with a school activity. Other articles that
were focused on educator preparation, studies with simulated data (e.g., Monte Carlo studies),
and research on PL not associated with a formal PK-12 school-based setting or experience (e.g.,
experiments conducted in university laboratories, learning centers) were excluded. Research
participants included PK-12 students or students within the age range of 5-18 years; research
1
Because OmniFile Full Text Select was no longer accessible through our institution, we only used the
other three databases to search studies conducted in 2018 and 2019.
with primary participants outside these parameters was excluded. Second, we only included
empirical studies that were most relevant to the implementation of PL. Studies that merely
reported on the potential or development process of specific systems or tools rather than their
actual application to personalize learning were excluded (e.g., Chen, Chen, & Liu, 2007; Chen &
Duh, 2008). Third, we included only empirical research articles published in refereed journals.
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria by screening the abstract and
methodology, the number of initially included articles published between 2006 and 2017 was
narrowed down to 52. We then conducted an ancestry search across the 52 articles to identify
potential missing studies. The ancestry search revealed two articles (i.e., Bingham et al., 2016;
Hsu, Hwang, & Chang, 2013) that met the inclusion criteria and were added to the review.
During the second round of search, screening, selecting based on inclusion criteria, 17 studies
were identified and added to the literature base for the review. In total, 71 empirical studies
associated with PL implementation in PK-12 educational settings were included for this review.
2.3. Coding procedures
We coded the data in a Google Sheet (see Supplemental Table). Each article was
reviewed and coded for research purpose, field of study, research approach, research design, and
primary findings associated with student educational outcomes. To explore how the PL
implementation is being researched across disciplines of study, we followed the open coding
procedure to identify and label the research purposes of each study. Open coding allowed us to
break down the research purpose data into separate categories, within which subcategorized
research purposes were clustered around different related themes (Brown, Stevenson, Troiano, &
Schneider, 2002). We followed the CIS analytic process to identify common conceptual groups
and clusters by constantly comparing codes among individual studies and build a general
interpretation grounded in the findings of different groups and clusters (Dixon-Woods, Bonas, et
al., 2006). Guided by the iterative data analysis featuring in CIS reviews, we developed
categories and clusters that were tentative in the initial stage, but gradually became specified as
our analysis continued.
The field of study was coded based on the department of the article author(s) identified in
the publication. After the initial inquiry of the extant literature, we identified two main fields of
study (a) education and/or learning sciences (hereafter, education) and (b) computer science
and/or information science (hereafter, computer science) as well as (c) a convergent group that
conducted interdisciplinary research. Studies were identified as interdisciplinary research if the
authors within a single article were from different fields. The research approach (i.e.,
quantitative, qualitative, mixed method) and design (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT],
quasi-experimental, descriptive, ethnographic studies) adopted in each study were coded,
respectively. We coded the content area (e.g., mathematics, English Language Arts [ELA]) on
which the interventions (if applicable) were focused. Primary findings especially associated with
student educational outcomes (e.g., learning outcomes, motivation, metacognitive skills)
measured by dependent/responsive variables (if applicable) were also coded.
2.4. Interrater reliability
To support reliability, two authors independently coded each article. Prior to coding, the
two authors discussed, agreed upon, and demonstrated competency on the coding structure.
After independently coding, all three authors met to discuss coding inconsistencies. Cohen’s
kappa coefficient (κ) with 95% confidence intervals were computed to determine the interrater
agreement of initial codes. The computation yielded a κ = 0.879, with 95% confidence intervals
ranging from 0.850 to 0.909, which can be interpreted as almost perfect or perfect agreement
(Landis & Koch, 1977). During the coding meeting, a consensus was reached across all three
authors.
3. Results
This review identified 71 empirical studies that focused on the implementation of PL in
PK-12 educational settings. In this section, we presented the results to address the three
overarching research questions.
3.1. Research purposes of the current studies (RQ1)
The open coding led us to identify the recurring themes of the research purposes such as
evaluating the effectiveness of technology that supported PL, exploring characteristics of PL
environments, and investigating student or teacher perception of PL across studies. Using CIS,
we iteratively compared these themes and then categorized them into two groups (see Table 1).
Specifically, these two groups included research that focused on (Group A) examining the effects
of specific digital systems, strategies, and/or tools to support PL for a specific course or group of
students or (Group B) exploring contextual factors that impacted the implementation of PL as a
whole-school initiative, agenda, project, or policy from different aspects.
3.1.1. Research purposes of Group A studies
As depicted in Table 1, 50 of the 71 studies fell in Group A across four clusters (A1
through A4). These four clusters included research that identified a specific focus on PL
implementation through A1: Adaptive learning technologies, assessments, or strategies, A2:
Learner preference-based personalization strategies, A3: Ubiquitous and/or mobile learning
systems, A4: Traditional learning management system (i.e., non-adaptive, non-mobile). The
breakdown of the clusters is reported below.
Twenty-two studies fell in A1. Researchers from this cluster proposed and examined
four types of adaptive learning technologies, two computerized adaptive assessment systems, and
one adaptive strategy mainly mediated by human. Adaptive learning technologies reported in the
cluster include web-based adaptive learning systems and/or intelligent tutoring systems (ITS;
e.g., Arroyo et al., 2014), educational computer games (e.g., Martín-SanJosé, Juan, Gil-Gómez,
& Rando, 2014), robotics (e.g., Leyzberg et al., 2018), and virtual reality systems (e.g.,
Bhattacharjee, Paul, Kim, & Karthigaikumar, 2017). The web-based adaptive learning and/or
ITS systems reported in 12 studies shared a similar operating mechanism for personalization.
Generally, these systems would analyze student background information, prior knowledge,
affective state, preference, and/or learning performance and then algorithmically provide
customized learning paths, contents, scaffolds, and/or assessment reports to individual students.
Three studies investigating how adaptive educational gaming (i.e., computer games) supported
PL. These studies focused on games to support learning pathways for individual learners
(Hwang, Sung, Hung, Huang, & Tsai, 2012), games that provided individualized guidance
during their learning processes (Katsionis & Virvou, 2008), or games that allowed student
autonomy in choosing different learning modes (Martín-SanJosé et al., 2014). Three studies
reported on interventions examining how personalized robot-human interactions in the classroom
enhanced student learning and improved effective learning behaviors (e.g., Leyzberg et al.,
2018). In another study on adaptive learning, researchers created an immersive simulated
learning environment that could adapt learning paths using a mobile virtual reality platform
(Bhattacharjee et al., 2017).
Additionally, two studies reported on how computerized adaptive assessment systems
provided timely personalized feedback and deliver targeted learning tasks that needed more
practices based on student test results (i.e., Hammerschmidt-Snidarich et al., 2019; You et al.,
2019). These systems share certain commonalities with other adaptive technologies.
Researchers in these studies explored how system-generated assessment reports afforded
teachers opportunities to customize teaching content (You et al., 2019) or pair students together
to work on self-paced activities (Hammerschmidt-Snidarich et al., 2019). Also focusing on
assessment for PL, Connor et al., (2018) examined an adaptive assessment-centered instructional
approach, which was primarily mediated by teachers as opposed to computerized adaptive
assessment. Drawing upon the results of an assessment administered four times per year,
teachers assigned students in small groups with different mathematics learning activities matched
to individual strengths and weaknesses (Connor et al., 20182).
Eighteen studies fell in A2 examining the impact of learner preference-based
personalization strategies on student learning. These strategies focused on personalizing learning
materials based on learner preferences, interests, and/or cultural background. Context
personalization, in which instruction is tailored to students’ out-of-school preferences and/or
interests in areas like sports, music, and video games (Walkington & Bernacki, 2015), emerged
as a major strategy in this cluster. Specifically, researchers in 14 studies investigated the
effectiveness of context personalization strategies, with six computer-mediated or app-based
interventions (e.g., Ku, Harter, Liu, Thompson, & Cheng, 2007; Kim et al., 2019), three using
ITS as learning platforms (i.e., Bernacki & Walkington, 2018; Walkington, 2013; Walkington &
Bernacki, 2019), and five relying primarily on human intervention with no modern technology
2
It is worth noting that Connor and colleagues conducted multiple studies investigating the effectiveness
of personalized instruction. Connor (2019) summarized and discussed seven randomized control trials
that evaluated the impacts of using A2i technology (i.e., an online adaptive assessment system) and
Individualizing Student Instruction (ISI) intervention to personalize literacy instruction for students from
kindergarten through third grade. The A2i online technology was designed to help teachers use
assessments results for each student in their classroom to plan and implement personalized face-to-face ad
computer-assisted instruction (Connor, 2019). However, researchers of these studies specified their
literature interventions as “individualized instruction” rather than “personalized instruction”. Based on the
inclusion and exclusion criteria, these studies were not included for this review.
(e.g., Akinsola & Awofala, 2009; Awofala, 2014; Walkington & Bernacki, 2015). In addition to
incorporating out-of-school interests into instruction, allowing students to self-select learning
content or online text format was also considered as a strategy to implement PL in two
interventions (i.e., Choi & Ma, 2015; Ertem, 2013). From a more holistic perspective, the other
two A2 studies investigated how culturally relevant instructions personalized students’ literacy
learning by taking into account their interests, personal experiences, and cultural identity (i.e.,
Mottram & Hall, 2009; Worthy, Consalvo, Bogard, & Russell, 2012).
Eight studies aligned to A3 with a primary focus on supporting PL through ubiquitous
and/or mobile learning systems. Specifically, these systems were supported by mobile phones or
personal digital assistants (PDAs) equipped with wireless connectivity (e.g., Chu, Hwang, Tsai,
& Tseng, 2010; Hwang, Tsai, Chu, Kinshuk, & Chen, 2012). Nearly all these mobile systems (n
= 7) utilized context detection and adaptive technologies to exploit students’ learning behaviors
in authentic settings (e.g., field trips) and then provide customized guidance that helped support
PL experiences (e.g., Hwang, Kuo, Yin, & Chuang, 2010). Additionally, through mobile
technology, students were also provided with individual choices in learning pathways and
materials as well as learner control of learning pace and means of demonstrating knowledge
(Looi et al., 2009). The other study in this cluster explored how four indigenous students from
two Australian secondary schools recorded their out-of-school lives using mobile phones and
thus brought their personal experiences to literacy class (Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008).
To finish group A, two studies investigated the role of non-algorithmically adaptive
technologies in supporting PL implementation. The technologies included a learning
management system (LMS) in personalizing an English Language Arts (ELA) class (Edmunds &
Hartnett, 2014) and diverse multimedia tools used to support students in engaging in digital
storytelling activities in an English as Second Language class (Kaminskienė & Khetsuriani,
2019).
3.1.2. Research purposes of group B studies
Studies in Group B, totaling 21, were categorized into four clusters. These clusters
included research on B1: Characteristics of PL environments and their impact on student
outcomes, B2: Specific approaches to implement school-wide PL, B3: Factors related to
adoption and implementation of PL, and B4: Teacher and/or student perception of PL. Similar to
Group A, the breakdown of this group is presented in Table 1.
Four studies fell in B1 with a primary purpose to identify characteristics of PL
environments (Abawi, 2015; Basham et al., 2016) or evaluate the effectiveness of the design
features of learning environments that enhanced personalization in student learning (Iver, 2011;
McClure, Yonezawa, & Jones, 2010). Another common feature shared by these studies was that
they all evaluated student learning outcomes in those PL environments.
Three studies were categorized as B2 research, which focused on exploring how goal
setting or choice provision strategy was carried out in multiple U.S. middle schools during the
early stage of a statewide PL implementation initiative (DeMink-Carthew & Netcoh, 2019;
DeMink-Carthew, Olofson, LeGeros, Netcoh, & Hennessey, 2017; Netcoh, 2017).
Exploring factors that affected the adoption and implementation of PL mainly from
participants’ perspectives featured prominently in the ten B3 studies. Within these studies, four
explored driving forces for and/or challenges to the implementation of technology-enabled PL
(e.g., Bingham et al., 2016; Robinson & Sebba, 2010). Two studies investigated frameworks or
models to adopt PL. Specifically, Ignatova, Dagiene, and Kubilinskiene (2015) developed and
evaluated a framework of ICT-based learning personalization affordance that would increase

possibilities of adoption and implementation of PL. Karmeshu, Raman, and Nedungadi (2012)
proposed a diffusion model of PL based on the potential adopter-teachers’ perspectives. The
researchers also identified the factors that could influence teachers’ decision to adopt the new
educational innovation. In addition, researchers in three studies developed instruments to
validate and explore PL implementation practices (e.g., Olofson, Downes, Petrick, LeGeros, &
Bishop, 2018). For example, two studies led by the same lead researcher in this cluster
developed a questionnaire instrument that could be applied to measure students’ perceptions of
factors impacting the implementation of PL and then validated a PL model using the instrument
(Waldrip et al., 2014; Waldrip et al., 2016). Other than focusing on instructional practices for
PL, Kallio (2018) looked at how the teacher and student participation in designing physical
learning space became meaningful and played a prominent role in implementing school-wide PL.
Four studies were nested within B4, the purpose of which was to elicit teachers’ and/or
students’ perceptions of how PL policies, concepts, and/or reforms impacted teaching and
learning practices (e.g., Beach & Dovemark, 2009; Hallman, 2018; Rogers & Gunter, 2012). It
is important to note that all studies in this cluster reported negative participant positions toward
school-wide PL policies and/or initiatives in different aspects. These include teachers’ confusion
about PL concept (Courcier, 2007), a teacher’s struggles with implementing PL through the
vehicle of 1:1 technology (Hallman, 2018), and students’ unfavorable experiences of choice
making and autonomy granted by PL reforms (Beach & Dovemark, 2009; Rogers & Gunter,
2012).
3.2. Primary characteristics of the current PL implementation research (RQ2)
This section reports the primary characteristics of the current research efforts on PL
implementation in terms of the field of study, research approach, research design, and content
area.
3.2.1. Field of study, research approach, and research design
As shown in Table 2, 43 studies were conducted by researchers from education and 16
from computer science. Twelve studies were interdisciplinary, with researchers coming from
different fields of study. Table 1 also demonstrates that researchers from education conducted
studies on PL with a wide range of foci. However, the largest number of studies from education
(n = 17; 39.5%) were focused on examining the effects of context personalization strategies on
student educational outcomes. Research in computer science concentrated on exploring the role
of adaptive technologies in personalizing learning (n = 14; 87.5%). In addition, interdisciplinary
studies demonstrated a focus on exploring how mobile devices supported student PL experiences
(n = 7; 58.3%).
In terms of the research approach, the majority of studies (n = 44) were quantitative, 19
were qualitative, and eight used mixed methods. Generally, experimental design was applied the
most frequently in the quantitative studies across all disciplines (n = 22; 50.0%), especially in
educational studies (n = 15; 65.2%). Sixteen quantitative studies applied quasi-experimental
design, seven of which were conducted by researchers from computer science, and six were
defined as interdisciplinary research. Alcoholado et al. (2011) conducted both usability research
as well as a quasi-experimental design on the implementation of PL; therefore, it was categorized
as quasi-experimental design. The rest of the quantitative approach studies were survey
investigations (n = 6), with five conducted by educational researchers.
Qualitative and mixed methods approach studies reported a large variety of research
designs. Nine qualitative studies and one mixed methods study used case study design. Other
research designs employed and reported across the two approach studies included quasi-
experimental study (n = 4), ethnographic study (n = 3), and each of the following designs:
descriptive research, longitudinal RCT, teacher-as-researcher study (i.e., action research;
Johnson, 2002), design-based study, and participatory design. In addition, four qualitative
studies did not specify the kind of qualitative research design (i.e., Courcier, 2007; DeMink-
Carthew et al., 2017; Looi et al., 2009; Rogers & Gunter, 2012).
3.2.2. Content area
As illustrated in Figure 1, Group A studies were intended to explore students’ PL
experiences in a wide range of content areas. Students’ mathematical skills were the most
commonly identified learning outcomes, assessed in 46% (23 out of 50) of Group A studies. Of
the 23 studies, 9 were designed to investigate how online adaptive learning systems and/or ITS
personalized students’ mathematics learning (e.g., Arroyo et al., 2014). Twelve studies were all
categorized into A2 given that researchers incorporated student interests or preferences into
mathematical word problem learning in each study (e.g., Akinsola & Awofala, 2009).
Researchers also examined student mathematics learning supported by an interactive robot
(Ramachandran et al., 2019) and an assessment-centered personalized instruction (Connor et al.,
2018).
Nine studies examined or described student learning experiences in English as Foreign
Language (EFL) or English as Second Language (ESL), but focused on different acquisition
skills such as vocabulary building supported by a context-aware ubiquitous learning system
(Chen & Li, 2010) and English grammar learning facilitated by a virtual reality game system
(Katsionis & Virvou, 2008) or an interactive robot tutor (Leyzberg et al., 2018). Eight studies
described students’ learning experiences in English Language Arts (ELA; e.g., Edmunds &
Hartnett, 2014; Worthy et al., 2012) or measured ELA learning outcomes (Ertem, 2013).
Natural science learning performance was evaluated in six studies, four of which focused
on evaluating the effects of personalized mobile learning experiences (e.g., Hwang, Tsai, et al.,
2012), and the other two studies analyzed student learning supported by a virtual reality learning
environment (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017) or a computer game (Hwang, Sung, et al., 2012).
Students’ learning experiences or outcomes in multiple subjects were examined at the same time,
such as history and mathematics in Baxter et al. (2018) and different combinations of subjects in
two other studies (i.e., Cornelisz & Klaveren, 2018; You et al.,2019). One study measured
student learning outcomes in history (Martín-SanJosé et al., 2014).
3.3. Measured student educational outcomes in the current PL research (RQ3)
As illustrated in Table 3, most Group A and B1 studies reported positive impacts of PL
on students’ educational performance. Of all quantitative and mixed methods studies that
measured those impacts, only seventeen studies explicitly reported effect size (i.e., Alcoholado et
al., 2011; Arroyo et al., 2014; Basham et al., 2016; Baxter et al., 2018; Bernacki & Walkington,
2018; Çakir & Şimşek, 2010; Choi & Ma, 2015; Chu et al., 2010; Connor et al., 2018;
Hammerschmidt-Snidarich et al., 2019; Iver, 2011; Kim et al., 2019; Martín-SanJosé et al., 2014;
Schmid & Petko, 2019; Walkington, 2013; Walkington & Bernacki, 2019; You et al., 2019).
3.3.1. Educational outcomes in Group A studies
Most studies (n = 17; 77.3%) in Group A1 reported positive impacts of adaptive learning
technologies and/or ITS on student learning outcomes. Only five studies in this cluster reported
insignificant differences in student learning outcomes between treatment and control group
students (Chen, 2009b; Cornelisz et al., 2018; Katsionis & Virvou, 2008; Martín-SanJosé et al.,
2014; Wang, 2014). Two of them are among the three studies that explicitly analyzed how
personalized e-learning systems were designed to positively impact learners’ metacognitive skills
acquisition (Arroyo et al., 2014; Chen, 2009b; Wang, 2014). Only one computer game
intervention in Group A1 reported an increase in student learning outcomes (Hwang, Sung, et al.,
2012). All interventions mediated by robots yielded greater learning gains for students in
personalized conditions than those in non-personalized conditions (e.g., Baxter et al., 2018).
Moreover, studies on the immersive situation learning environment (i.e., Bhattacharjee et al.,
2017) and assessment-centered adaptive systems or strategy (e.g., Connor et al., 2018) also
reported better learning outcomes for students in experimental groups than those in control
groups.
A majority of Group A2 students examined the effectiveness of learner preference-based
personalization strategies such as context personalization and learner self-selected learning
content demonstrated mixed results. Nine studies showed statistically significant effects on
participants’ learning outcomes (e.g., Choi & Ma, 2015; Ku et al., 2007; Bernacki &
Walkington, 2018), while the other six studies reported no significant difference in students’
posttest scores between personalized and non-personalized instruction groups (Awofala, 2014;
Çakir & Şimşek, 2010; Ertem, 2013; Høgheim & Reber, 2015; Kim et al., 2018; Şimşek &
Çakir, 2009).
Five Group A3 (studies that measured the effects of ubiquitous and/or mobile learning
interventions) reported increased student academic performance (i.e., Chen & Li, 2010; Chu et
al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2010; Hwang, Tsai, et al., 2012).
Researchers also utilized various self-report measures to analyze students’ attitude,
interest, motivation, engagement, and/or PL experience. Most studies employing questionnaires
or interviews in those clusters reported positive results in participants’ perceptions toward PL
systems, strategies, or environments. Seven qualitative studies in Group A specifically focused

on describing how culturally relevant approaches to instruction (Mottram & Hall, 2009; Worthy
et al., 2012), ubiquitous mobile learning systems (Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008; Looi et al.,
2009; Song et al., 2012), an LMS (Edmunds & Hartnett, 2014), and multimedia tools for digital
storytelling (Kaminskienė & Khetsuriani, 2019) supported students’ PL experiences.
3.3.2. Educational outcomes in Group B1 studies
As noted previously, Group B studies had a primary focus on investigating varying
contextual factors associated with the implementation of PL rather than measuring the impacts of
specific interventions on student learning. Nevertheless, Group B1 studies used student
academic outcome data to validate the findings associated with identified characteristics of PL
environments. For instance, Basham et al. (2016) reported academic gains in math and English
subjects of students with and without disabilities from a U.S. urban reform district that
implemented PL. Abawi (2015) reported increased enrollment rates of students with special
needs and accelerated math and reading growth for all students in an Australian high school that
adopted PL as school-wide inclusive practices. Basham et al. (2016) found that in PL
environments, student voice was frequently incorporated into decision-making processes such as
learning pathways planning. Students were also provided with opportunities and supports to
develop metacognitive skills, such as self-regulation (Basham et al., 2016), self-efficacy, and
self-control (Abawi, 2015). Researchers acknowledged that promoting student voice and
autonomy in those environments was aligned to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
framework, with a specific focus on providing students multiple means of demonstrating
understanding and mastery of knowledge and skills (Abawi, 2015; Basham et al., 2016).
The other two B1 studies evaluated the effectiveness of personalization programs
implemented in case study high schools on promoting interactions between students and their
learning environments (Iver, 2011; McClure et al., 2010). McClure et al. (2010) reported a
positive link between students’ perceived levels of personalization and their standardized test
scores in 14 small-size high schools. The perceived level of personalization in this study was
exemplified by students’ feelings of connectedness with adults at schools and senses of being
supported as individuals (McClure et al., 2010). McClure and colleagues (2010) noted that
“advisory” (wherein teachers support student advisees with cognitive and affective educational
needs) was noted as a key component of the schools’ move to greater personalization. With this
understanding, the researchers also measured students’ attitudes toward the advisory programs.
However, they found that students’ perceptions of the advisory programs were inversely
connected with their academic outcomes. In a related finding, Iver (2011) also reported that the
advisory program implemented in a high school to promote student-teacher interactions as a
means of enhancing personalization in learning environments only had an insignificant effect in
improving at-risk students’ graduation rates.
4. Discussion
This literature review provided a comprehensive understanding of the current research
efforts on the implementation of PL across education, learning sciences, computer science, and
information science. Adopting the CIS approach to synthesizing the diverse literature on PL
implementation, we aimed to generate new understandings of PL as a complex educational
phenomenon by linking the emergent themes of PL implementation in a more unified way. We
then offered a critique of current PL research efforts based on the findings in this section, aiming
to provide implications for future research.
A majority of studies found PL, especially technology-supported PL, were associated
with positive results. Across the studies, positive findings were found in academic outcomes
(e.g., Walkington, 2013), engagement (e.g., Arroyo et al., 2014), attitude toward learning (e.g.,
Hwang, Tsai, et al., 2012), and meta-cognitive skills (e.g., Chen, 2009b). Only eleven studies
(mainly associated with adaptive technologies and context personalization strategies) reported
statistically non-significant impact of PL on student learning outcomes (e.g., Çakir & Şimşek,
2010; Martín-SanJosé et al., 2014). Even considering the overabundance of publication bias (or
citation bias) toward positive outcomes in educational research (Sterling, Rosenbaum, &
Weinkam, 1995), the overall positive findings are not surprising. However, results also showed
only a few studies evaluated PL as a comprehensive initiative across a school or schools. In
addition, teachers’ and/or students’ negative positions toward certain aspects of PL were reported
in multiple case studies (e.g., Beach & Dovemark, 2009).
It is likely that either advocates or naysayers of PL emphasized individual findings
related to a single PL design or practice to support a position on the concept of PL. In reality,
various factors may impact the outcomes of a PL design. Specifically, if a PL design has a
positive effect toward an end goal, then the design has engaged positive moderating interactions
toward the end goal. Nonexistent findings (e.g., Çakir & Şimşek, 2010; Høgheim & Reber,
2015) might neglect to engage moderating interactions (positive or negative), whereas negative
findings support negative interactions toward an end goal. Thus, within PL research it is
important to consider the moderating interactions in relation to the end goal and the learner
variability within a given experience.
Conceptually, the very strength of PL is to focus on designing learning experiences at the
individual point of learning, thus accepting student variability and individuality (Rose & Ogas,
2018). This strength is also an obstacle to research. From a research stance, the primary concept
for measuring PL without a unifying framework is problematic, if not impossible. The very
nature of science requires a common vocabulary and associated taxonomic structure to conduct
research and effectively communicate findings (Kuhn, 1962). Thus, PL researchers must
advance a unified understanding to advance the field of implementation. In this section, we
discussed definitional variability in PL literature and provided a unifying framework for
advancing PL implementation. Based on these discussions, we then offered implications for
future PL research.
4.1. Definitional Variability
Findings from this review showed that the conceptualization and implementation of PL
varied greatly across the current studies. For example, the researchers that conducted studies in
digital systems, strategies, and/or tools to support PL for a specific course (Group A) mainly
concentrated on adaptive technologies, ubiquitous learning, and context personalization
strategies. Central to adaptive learning systems (Group A1) was their potential to provide
learners with PL paths or scaffolding customized to their level of knowledge or interest. It is
important to note that most of those studies relied heavily on prescriptive algorithms generated
by learning analytics. These learning systems explored only one or two design features of
technology-based PL but paid little attention to other contextual factors that would facilitate
individual student learning and progress. Thus, a general concern of this machine-driven
approach is that it simply replaces teacher-centered instruction and currently has limited ability
to engage learners beyond the screen (Basham, Stahl, Ortiz, Rice, & Smith, 2015).
By comparison, personalization in ubiquitous learning (Group A3) was manifested more
widely in students’ autonomy over how, when, and where to learn. These learning models
showed some potential design aspects of PL. In addition, the emergence of more sophisticated
mobile devices, including wearables, faster wireless and more realizable data connections, along
with technologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and improved data models should
enhance feasibility, interest, but also the variability in ubiquitous PL research (i.e., Bhattacharjee
et al., 2017). PL is growing fast with the integration of advanced technologies that could
meditate better student interactions with the learning environment. Nevertheless, various
questions remain about the implementation of PL as a scalable educational practice. For
instance, what are the underlying design variables (e.g., human, technology, environmental, data)
required to support and sustain PL across entire student populations? What core knowledge and
skills are needed for educators to support PL implementation? Given PL is about the acceptance
of learner variability, yet current measures are based on standards, how might outcomes be
measured at scale?
4.3. Moving Toward A Unifying Framework for PL
The lack of consistency in the conceptualization of PL is likely to result in confusion and
misunderstanding in implementation and adds difficulty in conducting research that can advance
practice. To establish an effective PL ecology, it would be beneficial to have all factors
identified from the current studies, among others, act together within a unifying research-based
framework. Research documented in this review (i.e., Abawi, 2015; Basham et al., 2016), U.S.
policy (e.g., ESSA, 2015), and education guidance documents (e.g., NETP, 2016) have often
associated PL with the UDL framework. Basically, UDL is an instructional framework for
guiding the design of flexible learning environments and experiences for all learners (Meyer,
Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Since its introduction in the late 1990s, UDL has advanced into a stable
instructional design framework based on interdisciplinary research across the learning sciences,
neuroscience, and educational sciences (CAST, 2018). At its core, UDL provides educators,
instructional designers, and/or educational technology designers considerations for effective

learning designs aimed at supporting learner variability existing within and between learners
across contexts (Basham & Blackorby, 2020). More specifically, UDL guides proactive and
iterative designs of learning environments and experiences, which provide learners with multiple
means of engaging in learning activities, perceiving and comprehending information, and
demonstrating understanding (CAST, 2018).
Implementing a UDL-based learning experience would begin by identifying the goals of
the experience. Specifically, implementers would consider the anticipated variability of the
learners and potential barriers to accomplishing the goal(s), determine the means for assessing
successful (or unsuccessful) learning experience, and then design actual learning experiences.
Throughout each step, the key is to support learners by integrating what is known about learner
variability in the learning environment and then iteratively design flexibility that would be
needed in order to ensure all learners could demonstrate success. The effectiveness of UDL-
aligned curricula and strategies on educational outcomes for students with diverse needs has
become increasingly evident in empirical studies across content and settings (see Hall, Cohen,
Vue, & Ganley, 2015; Marino et al., 2014; Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013). With its premise
to provide effective learning for all learners, UDL might serve as a starting point to begin the
development of a unifying framework that could foundationally build PL across research,
practice, and policy.
Given the global nature, diverse interdisciplinary perspectives and research interests, as
well as the relationship between PL and emergent technology, it is unlikely that a single
congruent definition will emerge. Nevertheless, developing a basic set of guidelines through a
collaborative process that integrates views from a diverse group of interdisciplinary stakeholders
from across the globe would be beneficial for advancing research and best practices. Similar
collaborative processes and guidelines have been developed in other interdisciplinary areas such
as in environmental design through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification (USGBC, 2018), in bioengineering through the work of the 10 principles generated
at the Biotechnology and the Ethical Imagination Global Summit (BEINGS; Wolpe &
Rommelfanger, 2017), and now in education relative to UDL in the UDL Credentialing and
Certification Initiative (UDLCCI, 2018). Notably, each of these initiatives began with a diffuse
and interdisciplinary field of practice to develop consensus on basic and shared principles of
practice. Progress is then made through this shared understanding.
4.4. Considerations for Future Research
Findings of this review have shown a wide array of research methods were applied in the
extant literature on PL. This width, to a certain extent, mirrors the diverse understandings,
definitions, and research foci in the field. Specifically, a majority of research on adaptive
learning and ubiquitous learning systems employed quasi-experimental designs to measure the
impact of PL supports, lacking in random sampling of participants and limited to research in
short intervention periods. Additionally, most of these studies failed to report effect size or
evidence of generalization and maintenance of students’ skills over time. By comparison, most
research conducted by educational researchers in this review was case study or ethnographic
study by design, focusing more on contextual factors impacting the establishment of learning
environments or projects featuring personalization. A majority of those studies applied
qualitative methods such as interviews to gather data, which failed to generate or record evidence
on whether those factors impacted student educational outcomes.
As a practice, PL requires new understandings and methods for research across multiple
disciplines. To implement and disseminate innovative educational practices, analytic studies on

causal relations among selected variables and systematic studies on complex learning
environments undergoing changes are needed (Salomon, 1991). The operationalization of PL is
such a complex process that requires leveraging many different components of education system
to meet the needs of each individual student (Abbott et al., 2015).
As aforementioned, various variables associated with PL have already emerged from the
extant literature, with some validated by previous robust research base and others needing further
investigations on their impacts on student educational outcomes. For instance, positive effects of
student autonomy were substantiated by research on goal setting (e.g., Morisano, Hirsh,
Peterson, Pihl, & Shore, 2010), self-regulation (e.g., Zimmerman, 2008), self-determination (e.g.,
Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little, 2011), and choice making (e.g., Patall,
2013). Effective instructional practices such as data-driven instructional adaptations were also
evidenced by research on progress monitoring (e.g., Wagner, Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, Espin,
Seifert, & McMaster, 2017) and individual scaffolding strategies (e.g., Delen, Liew, & Willson,
2014). As the premise of PL is to support learning for all learners, research that supports a single
path and means for information acquisition, engagement, or demonstration of understanding
neglects the very purpose of personalization. Thus, what remains under-researched here is how
these aforementioned evidence-based variables can be integrated within a unifying framework
that guides the complex designs of PL environments for all learners.
Given that the PL research is still in its infancy, methodological diversity can help extend
knowledge and understanding of its possible implementation strategies from various aspects. To
support ongoing advancement, PL requires research across the continuum from basic to applied.
That said, there is a need to conduct research on the foundations of learning, human growth,
variability, and measurement to support PL model development. In addition, in-depth

descriptive studies are equally important for investigating the patterns and forms of all building
blocks of PL as a comprehensive learning model. Studies of this type can help decode the
complexity and interpret the interdependency among the building blocks. However, as more
schools gravitate toward PL, research in the field should be ultimately focused on examining the
effects as well as side effects of practice (Zhao, 2017). This research should be foundationally
principled on the dynamic nature of learning and human variability that supports the need for PL.
4.5. Limitations
This research synthesis has several limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, this
review only included recent studies that were published from 2006 to 2019 because a previous
publication reviewed PL research that was published before 2006 (see Sebba et al., 2007).
Second, considering the heterogeneity of research purposes and intending to provide a
comprehensive picture of current research efforts associated with PL implementation, we did not
conduct a quality check for the included articles as conventional literature reviews would do
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). In line with the CIS approach, this review included empirical
studies that were most relevant to the implementation of PL. Therefore, readers should be
cautious when interpreting the results.
Third, this review excluded case-study evaluation reports from organizations such as
RAND, iNACOL, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Other “grey” literature (e.g.,
government documents, white papers, working papers, dissertations) or book chapters were
excluded in this review. We specified this exclusion criterion considering that the expected
complexity and heterogeneity of PL phenomenon in “grey” literature would make the processes
of review, analysis, and categorization less manageable. Additionally, we only included refereed
articles in the hope of increasing replicability and transparency of this review to the extent
possible. In this regard, some research trends might be excluded from this review.
5. Conclusion
This study reviewed the extant research on the implementation of PL in PK-12 education
environments across the educational systems. As previously identified, PL is becoming
recognized as a major trend to transform education systems and is not without controversy.
Nevertheless, increasing diversity of student population, foreseen need for a modern education
system, and the rapid integration of technology in PK-12 educational settings have catalyzed
conversations about implementing PL at scale around the globe (Basham et al., 2016). The
review showed that while generally positive, the empirical research examining the effects of PL
on PK-12 student learning outcomes is still in its initial stages of development. The intermix of
educator and student activities with appropriate use of technology and the UDL framework have
shown to be potential contributing supports for educators and researchers to design and
implement PL. However, the systemic educational transformation from one-size-fits-all,
teacher-centered approach to personalized, student-driven learning mode is by no means a simple
task that can be tackled by short-term research or implementation agendas. PL will require
decades of collective efforts from different stakeholders to bring this promising education
innovation to reality.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in this literature review.
*Abawi, L. A. (2015). Inclusion “from the gate in”: Wrapping students with personalised
learning support. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10, 47–61.
doi:10.1080/22040552.2015.1084676
Abbott, J., Basham, J., Nordmark, S., Schneiderman, M., Umpstead, B., Walter, K., & Wolf, M.
A. (2015). Technology-enabled personalized learning: Findings & recommendations to
accelerate implementation. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/qKmLZR
*Akinsola, M. K., & Awofala, A. O. A. (2009). Effect of personalization of instruction on
students’ achievement and self-efficacy in mathematics word problems. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40, 389–404.
doi:10.1080/00207390802643169
*Alcoholado, C., Nussbaum, M., Tagle, A., Gomez, F., Denardin, F., Susaeta, H., … Toyama, K.
(2011). One mouse per child: Interpersonal computer for individual arithmetic practice.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 295–309. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00438.x
*Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burelson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia
adaptive tutoring system for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and
affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 387–426.
doi:10.1007/s40593-014-0023-y
*Awofala, A. O. A. (2014). Examining personalisation of instruction, attitudes toward and
achievement in mathematics word problems among Nigerian senior secondary school
students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2,

273–288. doi:10.18404/ijemst.91464
*Bhattacharjee, D., Paul, A., Kim, J. H., & Karthigaikumar, P. (2017). An immersive learning
model using evolutionary learning. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 65, 236–249.
doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.08.023
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A
critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 59-69. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-
9-59
Basham, J. D., & Blackorby, J. (2020). UDL next: The future of the framework. In K. Lowrey
(Ed.), Critical Issues in Universal Design for Learning. Oviedo, FL: Knowledge by
Design.
*Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Carter, R. A., & Stahl, W. M. (2016). An operationalized
understanding of personalized learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31,
126–136. doi:10.1177/0162643416660835
Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Stahl, W. M., & Carter, R. A. (2017). Establishing a student-centered
environment to support all learners. In Curran, C., & Peterson, A. (Eds.), Handbook of
research on classroom diversity and inclusive education practice (pp. 155–182).
doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2520-2.ch007
Basham, J. D., Stahl, S., Ortiz, K., Rice, M. F., & Smith, S. (2015). Equity matters: Digital &
online learning for students with disabilities. Retrieved from Center on Online Learning
and Students with Disabilities website: https://goo.gl/bcvu38
*Baxter, P., Ashurst, E., Read, R., Kennedy, J., & Belpaeme, T. (2017). Robot education peers in
a situated primary school study: Personalisation promotes child learning. PLOS ONE, 12,
e0178126. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178126
*Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2009). Making “right” choices? An ethnographic account of
creativity, performativity and personalised learning policy, concepts and practices.
Oxford Review of Education, 35, 689–704. doi:10.1080/03054980903122267
*Bernacki, M. L., & Walkington, C. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 864–881. doi:10.1037/edu0000250
*Bingham, A. J., & Dimandja, O. O. (2017). Staying on track: Examining teachers’ experiences
in a personalized learning model. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 12,
75–96.
*Bingham, A. J., Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2016). Ahead of the curve:
Implementation challenges in personalized learning school models. Educational Policy,
32, 454–489. doi:10.1177/0895904816637688
Brown, S. C., Stevenson, R. A., Troiano, P. F., & Schneider, M. K. (2002). Exploring complex
phenomena: Grounded theory in student affairs research. Journal of College Student
Development, 43, 173–183. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f85c/6faa980dcaac3033416283ee4a645184c2d1.pdf
*Çakir, O., & Şimşek, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of the effects of computer and paper-
based personalization on student achievement. Computers & Education, 55, 1524–1531.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.018
Campbell, R. J., Robinson, W., Neelands, J., Hewston, R., & Mazzoli, L. (2007). Personalised
learning: Ambiguities in theory and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55,
135–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00370.x
CAST (2018). UDL and the learning brain. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cast.org/our-work/publications/2018/udl-learning-brain-neuroscience.html
*Chen, C. M. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path
guidance. Computers & Education, 51, 787–814. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.004
*Chen, C. M. (2009a). Ontology-based concept map for planning a personalised learning path.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 1028–1058. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2008.00892.x
*Chen, C. M. (2009b). Personalized E-learning system with self-regulated learning assisted
mechanisms for promoting learning performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 36,
8816–8829. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.026
Chen, C. M., Chen, Y. Y., & Liu, C. Y. (2007). Learning performance assessment approach
using web-based learning portfolios for e-learning systems. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 37, 1349–1359.
doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2007.900641
Chen, C. M., & Duh, L. J. (2008). Personalized web-based tutoring system based on fuzzy item
response theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 2298–2315.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.03.010
*Chen, C. M., & Li, Y. L. (2010). Personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system for
supporting effective English vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 18,
341–364. doi:10.1080/10494820802602329
*Chen, C. J., & Liu, P. L. (2007). Personalized computer-assisted mathematics problem-solving
program and its impact on Taiwanese students. The Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 105–121. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21809/
*Choi, M. L., & Ma, Q. (2015). Realising personalised vocabulary learning in the Hong Kong
context via a personalised curriculum featuring “student-selected vocabulary.” Language
and Education, 29, 62–78. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.942318
*Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to
developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses.
Computers & Education, 55, 1618–1627. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.004
*Clinton, V., & Walkington, C. (2019). Interest-enhancing approaches to mathematics
curriculum design: Illustrations and personalization. The Journal of Educational
Research, 112, 495-511. doi:10.31219/osf.io/d4q2m
*Cornelisz, I., & van Klaveren, C. (2018). Student engagement with computerized practising:
Ability, task value, and difficulty perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
34, 828–842. doi:10.1111/jcal.12292
*Connor, C. M., Mazzocco, M. M. M., Kurz, T., Crowe, E. C., Tighe, E. L., Wood, T. S., &
Morrison, F. J. (2018). Using assessment to individualize early mathematics instruction.
Journal of School Psychology, 66, 97–113. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.005
*Courcier, I. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of personalised learning. Evaluation & Research in
Education, 20, 59-80. doi:10.2167/eri405.0
*DeMink-Carthew, J., & Netcoh, S. (2019). Mixed feelings about choice: Exploring variation in
middle school student experiences with making choices in a personalized learning
project. RMLE Online, 42, 1–20. doi:10.1080/19404476.2019.1693480
*DeMink-Carthew, J., Olofson, M. W., LeGeros, L., Netcoh, S., & Hennessey, S. (2017). An
Analysis of Approaches to Goal Setting in Middle Grades Personalized Learning
Environments. RMLE Online, 40(10), 1–11. doi:10.1080/19404476.2017.1392689
Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on
learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education,
78, 312–320. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018
Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., … Young, B.
(2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical
perspective. Qualitative Research, 6, 27–44. doi:10.1177/1468794106058867
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., … Sutton, A.
J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to
healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35–47.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
*Edmunds, B., & Hartnett, M. (2014). Using a learning management system to personalise
learning for primary school students. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning,
18(1), 11–29. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079832.pdf
*Ertem, I. S. (2013). The influence of personalization of online texts on elementary school
students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading. International Journal of
Progressive Education, 9(3), 218–228. Retrieved from
http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/258591
Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
Flemming, K. (2010). Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research: An example using
Critical Interpretive Synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 201–217.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05173.x
Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL
and technology: Strategic reader. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 38, 72–83.
doi:10.1177/0731948714544375
*Hallman, H. L. (2018). Personalized learning through 1:1 technology initiatives: implications
for teachers and teaching in neoliberal times. Teaching Education, 30, 299–318.
doi:10.1080/10476210.2018.1466874
*Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, S. M., Edwards, L. M., Christ, T. J., & Thayer, A. J. (2019).
Leveraging technology: A multi-component personalized system of instruction to teach
sight words. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 150–171. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.005
*Hartnell-Young, E., & Vetere, F. (2008). A means of personalising learning: Incorporating old
and new literacies in the curriculum with mobile phones. Curriculum Journal, 19, 283–
292. doi:10.1080/09585170802509872
*Høgheim, S., & Reber, R. (2015). Supporting interest of middle school students in mathematics
through context personalization and example choice. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 42, 17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.006
*Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based
mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students.
*Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Yin, P. Y., & Chuang, K. H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for
planning personalized learning paths for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers &
Education, 54, 404–415. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.024
*Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., Huang, I., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Development of a
personalized educational computer game based on students’ learning styles. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 60, 623–638. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9241-x
*Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Chu, H. C., Kinshuk, K., & Chen, C. Y. (2012). A context-aware
ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a science park.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 931–947. doi:10.14742/ajet.825
*Ignatova, N., Dagiene, V., & Kubilinskiene, S. (2015). ICT-based learning personalization
affordance in the context of implementation of constructionist learning activities.
Informatics in Education, 14, 51–65. doi:10.15388/infedu.2015.04
*Iver, M. A. M. (2011). The challenge of improving urban high school graduation outcomes:
Findings from a randomized study of dropout prevention efforts. Journal of Education
for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 167–184. doi:10.1080/10824669.2011.584497
Johnson, A. (2002). A short guide to action research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jones, L. E., & Casey, M. C. (2015). Personalized learning: Policy & practice recommendations
for meeting the needs of students with disabilities. Retrieved from National Center for
Learning Disabilities website: https://goo.gl/Lq7tuf
*Kallio, J. (2018). Participatory design of classrooms: Infrastructuring education reform in K‐
12 personalized learning programs. Journal of Learning Space, 7: 32-45. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1200625.pdf
*Kaminskienė, L., & Khetsuriani, N. (2019). Personalisation of learning through digital
storytelling. Management, 24, 153–166. doi:10.30924/mjcmi.24.1.10
*Karmeshu, Raman, R., & Nedungadi, P. (2012). Modelling diffusion of a personalized learning
framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 585–600.
doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9249-2
*Katsionis, G., & Virvou, M. (2008). Personalised e-learning through an educational virtual
reality game using Web services. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 39, 47–71.
doi:10.1007/s11042-007-0155-2
Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2008). Personalized instruction: The key to student achievement
(2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Keller, F. S. (1968). “GOOD-BYE, TEACHER …”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1),
79–89. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-79
*Kim, J. S., Asher, C. A., Burkhauser, M., Mesite, L., & Leyva, D. (2019). Using a sequential
multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) to develop an adaptive K–2 literacy
intervention with personalized print texts and App-based digital activities. AERA Open, 5,
233285841987270. doi:10.1177/2332858419872701
*Ku, H. Y., Harter, C. A., Liu, P. L., Thompson, L., & Cheng, Y. C. (2007). The effects of
individually personalized computer-based instructional program on solving mathematics
problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1195–1210.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.017
*Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., & Sheehy, K. (2014). Reading personalized books with
preschool children enhances their word acquisition. First Language, 34, 227–243.
doi:10.1177/0142723714534221
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
*Kurilovas, E., Zilinskiene, I., & Dagiene, V. (2015). Recommending suitable learning paths
according to learners’ preferences: Experimental research results. Computers in Human
Behavior, 51, 945–951. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.027
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310
*Leyzberg, D., Ramachandran, A., & Scassellati, B. (2018). The effect of personalization in
longer-term tobot tutoring. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 7, 1–19.
doi:10.1145/3283453
*Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., So, H. J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., … Soloway, E. (2009).
Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: Learning my way. Computers & Education, 53, 1120–
1132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.021
Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez III, E., Basham, J. D., & Becht, K. (2014).
UDL in the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text
heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities? Learning
Disability Quarterly, 37, 87–99. doi:10.1177/0731948713503963
*Martín-SanJosé, J. F., Juan, M. C., Gil-Gómez, J. A., & Rando, N. (2014). Flexible learning
itinerary vs. linear learning itinerary. Science of Computer Programming, 88, 3–21.
doi:10.1016/j.scico.2013.12.009
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and
practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
*McClure, L. V., Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2010). Can school structures improve teacher-
student relationships? The relationship between advisory programs, personalization and
students’ academic achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1–21.
doi:10.14507/epaa.v18n17.2010
Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M. (2010). Setting,
elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 255–264. doi:10.1037/a0018478
*Mottram, M., & Hall, C. (2009). Diversions and diversity: Does the personalisation agenda
offer real opportunities for taking children’s home literacies seriously? English in
Education, 43, 98–112. doi:10.1111/j.1754-8845.2009.01042.x
*Netcoh, S. (2017). Balancing freedom and limitations: A case study of choice provision in a
personalized learning class. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 383–392.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.010
*Olofson, M. W., Downes, J. M., Petrick Smith, C., LeGeros, L., & Bishop, P. A. (2018). An
instrument to measure teacher practices to support personalized learning in the middle
grades. RMLE Online, 41, 1–21. doi:10.1080/19404476.2018.1493858
Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M., Hamilton, L. S., & Pane, J. D. (2017). Informing progress:
Insights on personalized learning implementation and effects. Retrieved from RAND
Corporation website: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2042.html
Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 522–534. doi:10.1037/a0030307
Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: Defining and integrating
personalized, blended and competency education. Retrieved from iNACOL website:
https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mean-what-you-say-1.pdf
Peterson, A. (2016). Personalizing education at scale: Learning from international system
strategies. Retrieved from: http://edredesign.org/sites/default/files/Case%20Overview.pdf
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
Psychology, 105, 1210–1225. doi:10.1037/a0033217
*Ramachandran, A., Huang, C.-M., & Scassellati, B. (2019). Toward effective robot-child
tutoring: Internal motivation, behavioral intervention, and learning outcomes. ACM
Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 9, 1–23. doi:10.1145/3213768
Redding, S. (2016). Competencies and personalized learning. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J.
Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp.
3–18). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568173.pdf

*Robinson, C., & Sebba, J. (2010). Personalising learning through the use of technology.
*Rogers, S. H., & Gunter, H. M. (2012). Crouching tiger, hidden child. Management in
Education, 26, 140–147. doi:10.1177/0892020612445686
Rose, T., & Ogas, O. (2018). Dark horse: Achieving success through the pursuit of fulfillment.
NY: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
*Schmid, R., & Petko, D. (2019). Does the use of educational technology in personalized
learning environments correlate with self-reported digital skills and beliefs of secondary-
school students? Computers & Education, 136, 75–86.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.006
Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S., Galton, M., & James, M. (2007). An investigation of
personalised learning approaches used by schools (Research Report No. 843). Retrieved
from https://goo.gl/oegSzS
Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Williams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. D. (2011).
Effect of intervention with the self-determined learning model of instruction on access
and goal attainment. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 320–330.
doi:10.1177/0741932511410072
*Siddique, A., Durrani, Q. S., & Naqvi, H.A. (2017). Design adaptive e-learning environment
using individual differences. Pakistan Journal of Science. 69, 101-109.
*Siddique, A., Durrani, Q. S., & Naqvi, H. A. (2018). Developing adaptive e-Learning
environment using cognitive and noncognitive parameters. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 57, 811–845. doi:10.1177/0735633118769433
*Şimşek, N., & Çakır, O. (2009). Effect of personalization on students’ achievement and gender
factor in mathematics education. International Journal of Social Science, 4, 278-282.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.1333154
*Song, Y., Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2012). Fostering personalized learning in science inquiry
supported by mobile technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development,
60, 679–701. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9245-6
*Su, J., Tseng, S., Wang, W., Weng, J., David, J. T., Tsai, W., …Yang, D. (2006). Learning
portfolio analysis and mining for SCORM compliant environment. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 9, 262–275. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.9.1.262
Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The
effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The
American Statistician, 49, 108–112.
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). (2018). https://new.usgbc.org/leed Accessed 26
May 2018.
*Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an adaptive
learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers &
Education, 51, 776–786. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.002
U.K. Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Five year strategy for children and
learners. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/zpDHze
Universal Design for Learning Credentialing and Certification Initiative (UDLCCI). (2018).
http://www.udlcci.org/ Accessed 15 May 2018.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready
learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. Retrieved from

https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Wagner, D. L., Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, S. M., Espin, C. A., Seifert, K., & McMaster, K. L.
(2017). Pre-service teachers’ interpretation of CBM progress monitoring data. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 22–31. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12125
*Waldrip, B., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., … Yager, Z. (2014).
Student perceptions of personalised learning: Development and validation of a
questionnaire with regional secondary students. Learning Environments Research, 17,
355–370. doi:10.1007/s10984-014-9163-0
*Waldrip, B., Yu, J. J., & Prain, V. (2016). Validation of a model of personalised learning.
Learning Environments Research, 19, 169–180. doi:10.1007/s10984-016-9204-y
*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, 932–945. doi:10.1037/a0031882
*Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. (2015). Students authoring personalized “algebra stories”:
Problem-posing in the context of out-of-school interests. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 40, 171–191. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.08.001
*Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2019). Personalizing algebra to students’ individual
interests in an intelligent tutoring system: Moderators of impact. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29, 58–88. doi:10.1007/s40593-018-0168-1
*Wang, T. H. (2014). Developing an assessment-centered e-Learning system for improving
student learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 73, 189–203.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.002
Wolpe, P. R., & Rommelfanger, K. S. (2017). Ethical principles for the use of human cellular
biotechnologies. Nature biotechnology, 35, 1050–1058. doi:10.1038/nbt.4007
*Worthy, J., Consalvo, A. L., Bogard, T., & Russell, K. W. (2012). Fostering academic and
social growth in a primary literacy workshop classroom. The Elementary School Journal,
112, 568–589. doi:10.1086/664491
*You, X., Li, M., Xiao, Y., & Liu, H. (2019). The feedback of the Chinese Learning Diagnosis
System for personalized learning in classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1751.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01751
Zhao, Y. (2017). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Journal of Educational
Change, 18, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10833-016-9294-4
Zhao, Y., Tavangar, H., McCarren, E., Rshaid, G. F., & Tucker, K. (2016). The take-action guide
to world class learners book 3: How to make personalization and student autonomy
happen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research
Journal, 45, 166–183. doi:10.3102/0002831207312909

Table 1
Research Purpose, Field of Study, and Number of Current Personalized Learning (PL) Implementation Studies
Research Purpose Field of Study Total

Group A Examined the effects of specific digital systems, strategies, and/or tools to
50
implement PL
A1 Examined effects of adaptive technologies, assessments, or strategies that supported PL Ed and/or LS (5) 22
• Web-based adaptive learning systems or intelligent tutoring systems (Alcoholado et CS and/or IS (14)
al., 2011; Arroyo et al., 2014; Chen, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Cornelisz et al., 2018); Kurilovas et al., Interdisciplinary (3)
2015; Siddique, Durrani, & Naqvi, 2017; Siddique, Durrani, & Naqvi, 2019; Su et al., 2006; Tseng
et al., 2008; Wang, 2014)
• Educational computer games (Hwang, Sung, et al., 2012; Katsionis & Virvou, 2008; Martín-
SanJosé et al., 2014)
• Robotics (Baxter et al., 2017; Leyzberg et al., 2018; Ramachandran et al., 2019)
• Virtual reality system (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017)
• Computerized adaptive assessments (You et al., 2019; Hammerschmidt-Snidarich et al., 2019)
• Flexible small-group instructional activities adapted to student strengths and
weaknesses (Connor et al., 2018)
A2 Examined effects of learner preference-based personalization strategies Ed and/or LS (17) 18
Interdisciplinary (1)
• Technology-enhanced context personalization (Bernacki & Walkington, 2018; Çakır &
Şimşek, 2010; Chen & Liu, 2007; Clinton & Walkington, 2019; Høgheim & Reber, 2015; Kim et al.,
2018; Ku et al., 2007; Walkington, 2013; Walkington & Bernacki, 2019)
• Context personalization involving no modern technology (Akinsola & Awofala, 2009;
Awofala, 2014; Şimşek & Çakır, 2009; Walkington & Bernacki, 2015; Kucirkova et al., 2014)
• Learner-selected learning material (Choi & Ma, 2015; Ertem, 2013)
• Culturally relevant approaches (Mottram & Hall, 2009; Worthy et al., 2012)
A3 Explored how ubiquitous and/or mobile learning systems supported PL and their Ed and/or LS (1) 8
impacts on student educational outcomes Interdisciplinary (7)
• Chen & Li, 2010; Chu et al., 2010; Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008; Hsu et al., 2013; Hwang, et al.,
2010; Hwang, Tsai, et al., 2012; Looi et al., 2009; Song et al., 2012)
A4 Explored how non-adaptive technologies facilitated PL implementation Ed and/or LS (2) 2
• Learning management system (Edmunds & Hartnett, 2014)
• Multimedia tools for digital storytelling (Kaminskienė & Khetsuriani, 2019)
Table 1 (continued)
Research Purpose Field of Study Total
Group B Explored contextual factors that impacted PL as a whole-school initiative,

21
agenda, project, or policy from different aspects
B1 Explored characteristics of PL environments and their impacts on student educational Ed and/or LS (4) 4
outcomes
• Described characteristics of PL environments (Abawi, 2015 ; Basham et al., 2016)
a
• Evaluated educational program/project featuring personalization (Iver, 2011; McClure

et al., 2010)
B2 Explored specific school-wide approaches to PL implementation Ed and/or LS (3) 3
• Goal setting (DeMink-Carthew et al., 2017)
• Choice provision (DeMink-Carthew & Netcoh, 2019; Netcoh, 2017)
B3 Explored factors impacting the adoption and implementation of PL Ed and/or LS (8) 10
• Explored tech-based driving forces and challenges to adopt PL (Bingham & Dimandja, CS and/or IS (1)
2017; Bingham et al., 2016; Robinson & Sebba, 2010; Schmid & Petko, 2019) Interdisciplinary (1)
• Investigate the model/framework of PL adoption (Ignatova et al., 2015; Karmeshu et al.,
2012)
• Developed measures to validate and explore PL implementation practices (Olofson
et al., 2018; Waldrip et al., 2014; Waldrip et al., 2016)
• Explored how teachers and students participating in designing physical learning
spaces that supported PL implementation (Kallio, 2018)
B4 Investigated teacher and/or student perception of PL initiatives, policies, reforms, Ed and/or LS (4) 4
and/or concepts
• Examined student perception of how PL policies and reforms influenced learning
(Rogers & Gunter, 2012)
• Examined teacher perception of the concept of PL (Courcier, 2007) or PL practices
through 1:1 technology initiative (Hallman, 2018)
• Examined teacher and student perception of how PL policies had been carried out
(Beach & Dovemark, 2009)
Note. ED = Education; LS = Learning Sciences; CS = Computer Science; IS = Information Science. The numbers in the parentheses denote the total
numbers of studies that fall under different clusters in terms of research purpose.
a
This study reported student educational outcomes as background information.
Table 2
Number of Studies by Field of Study, Research Approach, and Research Design
Research Approach and Design

Field of Study
Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Methods Total
Education and/or Learning 15 RCT 7 CS 1 DR

Sciences 5 SS 1 ES 1 LRS
3 QS 3 EtS 1 TaR
43
1 DbS 1 CS
3 NS
1 PD
Computer and/or Information 7 QS

Sciences 6 RCT 2 QS 16
1 SS
Interdisciplinary Studies 6 QS 2 CS 2 QS
12
1 RCT 1 NS
Total 44 19 8 71
Note. RCT = Randomized Control Trials; SS = Survey Study; QS = Quasi-experimental Study; CS = Case Study; EtS
= Ethnographic Study; DbS = Design-based Study; NS = Not Specified; DS = Descriptive Research; LRS =
Longitudinal Randomized Study; PD = Participatory Design; TaR = Teacher-as-Researcher.
Table 3
Number of Studies and Primary Impact on Educational Outcomes
Group A Group B
A1 (n = 22) A2 (n = 18) A3 (n = 8) A4 (n = 2) B1 (n = 4)
Learning outcomes 17 (+); 5 (*) 9 (+); 6 (*) 5 (+) 1 (+)
Metacognition (self-regulation) 4 (+)
Attitude/Motivation/Engagement 10 (+); 1 (*) 9 (+) 6 (+) 1 (+)
PL experiences 2 (+) 3 (+) 2 (+)
Enrollment rate 1 (+); 1 (*)
Note. The symbol “+” denotes positive results. The symbol “*” denotes neutral results. Some studies
reported multiple results, all of which were coded.
Figure 1. Content Areas Addressed in Group A Studies Associated with Personalized Learning (PL) Implementation
Figure 1. Network diagram illustrating different technologies or strategies applied to facilitate PL implementation in different content areas in Group A
studies. EFL = English as Foreign Language; ELA = English Language Arts; ESL = English as Second Language
Note. This color figure is intended for color reproduction on the Web and in print.
Highlights
• The paper reviewed 71 studies on the implementation of personalized learning (PL).
• Many studies explored the role of technology in supporting PL implementation.
• Few studies examined the effectiveness of PL as a whole-school initiative.
• Issues around PL conceptualization and empirical evidence were discussed.

10 1016@j Edurev 2020 100339

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1016@j Edurev 2020 100339

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis

Ling Zhang, James D. Basham, Sohyun Yang

To appear in: Educational Research Review

Received Date: 23 December 2019

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Ling Zhang: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing-Original draft

Ling Zhang, James D. Basham, and Sohyun Yang

Department of Special Education, University of Kansas

1450 Jayhawk Blvd, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, United States

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ling Zhang, Doctoral

Candidate, Department of Special Education, University of Kansas. E-mail address: elainezhang-

Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd, Lawrence, KS, 66045-3101, USA.

and/or publication of this article.

commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Understanding the Implementation of Personalized Learning: A Research Synthesis

contemporary education system. In this article, we systematically identified and synthesized 71

as a whole-school initiative on student educational outcomes. We ended by discussing the issues

future advancement of the field.

Keywords: personalized learning; interdisciplinary inquiry; technology; learner

Understanding the Implementation of Personalized Learning: A Research Synthesis

emphasized student self-pacing, mastery-learning, and small-group tutoring, is an example of

early initiatives to implement personalized approaches to instruction and often considered as a

scale (Basham, Hall, Stahl, & Carter, 2017).

Learning (UDL) framework (ESSA, 2015).

are still in its infancy.

The contemporary understanding of PL emerges from integrated advancements across

disciplines conducted research on an adaptive mathematics tutoring application that integrated

different fields to collaborate closely and conduct interdisciplinary research on PL (U.S.

Thus, a clearer understanding of the characteristics of current PL research across disciplines

computer science is focused on advanced learning technologies, data, or machine learning

1) How is the implementation of PL being researched across disciplines of study?

2) What are the primary characteristics of the current PL implementation research?

across disciplines to inform PL implementation as an emergent educational phenomenon.

generating theory, evidence-based practice, and/or new conceptualization of a topic of interest

generating conceptualizations or theories rather than aggregating evidence for a well-defined

This feature of CIS allowed us to explore the implementation of PL as a broadly-defined concept

in a diverse body of interdisciplinary literature.

and quantitative evidence pertaining to the implementation of PL from different disciplines.

between them. The iterative analysis process enabled us to critically interpret PL

with student educational outcomes.

2.1. Literature search procedures

personalization and learning, personalization and education, personalization and instruction).

“personalize”, “personalized”, and “personalization”, were also utilized as alternatives in each

potential studies for further screening.

2.2. Application of inclusion and exclusion criteria

experiments conducted in university laboratories, learning centers) were excluded. Research

2.3. Coding procedures

our analysis continued.

conducted interdisciplinary research. Studies were identified as interdisciplinary research if the

quasi-experimental, descriptive, ethnographic studies) adopted in each study were coded,

student educational outcomes (e.g., learning outcomes, motivation, metacognitive skills)

measured by dependent/responsive variables (if applicable) were also coded.

2.4. Interrater reliability

This review identified 71 empirical studies that focused on the implementation of PL in

overarching research questions.

3.1. Research purposes of the current studies (RQ1)

evaluating the effectiveness of technology that supported PL, exploring characteristics of PL

students or (Group B) exploring contextual factors that impacted the implementation of PL as a

whole-school initiative, agenda, project, or policy from different aspects.

3.1.1. Research purposes of Group A studies

implementation through A1: Adaptive learning technologies, assessments, or strategies, A2: