This study explores the implementation and evaluation of interventions for personalised learning with ICT in Dutch primary and secondary schools using Context Intervention Mechanism Outcome-logic analyses (CIMO; Denyer, Tranfield & van Aken, 2008). The study is embedded in a government supported education project, entitled ‘A Breakthrough in Education and ICT’, which seeks to support student learning using ICT in an efficient and effective way to meet the individual differences between students. Within this project 38 secondary  schools received funding for two consecutive school years (2015/2016 & 2016/2017) to design and implement innovations related to personalised learning and ICT. For the design of school-specific interventions, the schools were supported by the sector organisation of secondary schools. Also, 87 primary schools were implementing innovations related to personalised learning and ICT. As a result of 125 schools being in charge of designing their own interventions related to personalized learning and ICT, the scale, content and focus of the school-specific interventions varied largely amongst the participating schools. The objective of our research is to study the implementation of the school-specific interventions and its effects on student learning, motivation and self-regulation skills through a CIMO-logic. The analysis concerns a case-comparative analysis technique which makes it possible to study implementation and evaluation of innovations across cases. With this study, we expect to generate insights in how schools optimally implement learning environments with ICT to accommodate for differences in students’ needs. The main research question is:

How do secondary schools implement school-specific interventions related to personalised learning with ICT and what are the outcomes of these interventions for students’ motivation, self-regulation and cognitive performance?

Conceptual framework

The use of technology in schools has recently received increasing interest for integrating ICT to support personalised learning (Vandewaetere,  Desmet, & Clarebout, 2011). Personalised learning is often used as synonym for self-regulated learning, differentiated instruction and adaptive teaching (Prain et al., 2013). In our study, we define personalised learning as the organization of learning environments in such a way that students’ learning experiences are tuned to students’ needs. We are especially interested in the way teachers enact ICT-integrated personalised learning environments to meet students’ needs. According to Corbalan, Kester and Van Merriënboer (2006) adaptation to students’ needs can be either a result of teacher control, student control or shared control. In this approach, differentiated instruction can be seen as personalised learning through a teacher controlled learning environment and students’ self-regulated learning as typically student-controlled. These different forms of personalised learning have been suggested to impact students’ learning, motivation and development of self-regulation skills (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013). However, little is known about how schools integrate technology-enhanced learning environments with personalised pedagogies and what its effects are on students’ cognitive and affective outcomes (Robinson & Sebba, 2010; Vandewaetere, Desmet & Clarebout, 2011).

Topic of poster

This research is characterized by a large variety of case-studies of school-based interventions related to personalised learning and ICT. The poster discusses the CIMO-logic technique that we perform to compare the similarities and differences between the implementation and outcomes of these multiple school-specific interventions (Denyer, Tranfield & van Aken, 2008). Most studies about innovations in schools report little about mechanisms that can explain why a certain intervention produces a certain outcome. The CIMO-logic has previously proved to be useful for distinguishing effective mechanisms in school change (cf. Authors, 2015). This analysis technique is characterized by a chain reasoning of interventions to mechanisms and outcomes (see Methods). We will discuss our experiences and assets of using this technique in our study.

Authors (2015) Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34, 399-422. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J.E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29, 393-413. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175-213. Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrely, C., et al. (2013). Personalised learning: lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 654-676. Robinson, C. & Sebba, J. (2010). Personalised learning through the use of technology. Computers and Education, 54, 767-775. Van den Akker, J. (2003). ‘Curriculum perspectives: an introduction.’ In van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W. and Hameyer, U. (Eds). Curriculum Landscapes and Trends. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vandewaetere, M., Desmet, P., & Clarebout, G. (2011). The contribution of learner characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 118-130. Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H. & Rosseel, Y. (2013). Measuring the complexity of upper primary school children’s self-regulated learning: A multi-component approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 407-425. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning. A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New York: Routledge.