Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations, References, and Appendices. "A study of the relationship between Interpersonal Choices and Performance Task achievement in an International School in South-east Asia"
Author: Daryl Thompson
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
The study has shown that there is an urgent need for education to adapt to the ever changing needs of the student. Employers today value problem solving skills more than they value the grades from an archaic system of education. There is a need for schools to report student progress on the defined competencies a student must demonstrate in a particular school level and subject area. This will reduce unnecessary competitiveness amongst each other and promote a need to progress from within.
There is a need to connect the required skills with the required assessments in order to produce the required individual. This shift will result in the increase of engagement within students who demand more from education today. The study has shown that this required transformation must include the implementation of cognitive learning to the curriculum. This enables students to use their thinking skills to solve problems in authentic real world situations which equates to what the employers of today are pleading for. The research has shown that the introduction of cognitive dispositions such as the Habits of Mind and Interpersonal Learning can improve student achievement in these tasks and therefore should be implemented into the curriculum. However, this also requires a change in policy, curriculum, content and assessment methods to make learning relevant, effective, engaging and to align with employment needs. If the one-size-fits-all was meant to power the industrial age with a largely static body of knowledge, personalized learning with its focus on the learner as a unique individual, with existing skills, interests, abilities and distinct needs that shape personalized pathways is highly suited for the knowledge age that will require navigating through a sea of rapidly evolving information and content, and the need to acquire new skills quickly, as part of a lifelong learning journey.
It is evident that there are different perspectives on definition, implementation and how personalization affects student achievement. . As implementation spreads, the research base that appraises these approaches needs to mature and change. This paper has argued that personalization will only be successful when it is implemented within a framework and philosophy which gives students the opportunities for voice, choice and control. If institutions drive personalization through solely teacher generated resources and pedagogy the students will not be able to develop the cognitive thinking skills required to become successful problem solvers.
In regards to student achievement, the research outlined in this paper supports and furthers the recent literature on the importance of epistemic cognition, and also points towards necessary areas of further research. The research calls for further studies to understand the full potential and effectiveness of Interpersonal learning strategies (Gross & DeArmond, 2018). More longitudinal data are needed to see what the results of student achievement are with Interpersonal learning (Pane et al., 2015). The data analysis from this study will help determine whether the integration of digital content, the increased emphasis on student decision making, data-driven instructional practices, and timely feedback to support student learning are effective strategies in increasing student achievement.
In terms of curriculum planning, there is now a requirement for Interpersonal learning elements to be embedded within the desired results stage of the UBD framework. It is also important to make these goals topical and relatable to the unit of study. This work has already begun by translating the school-wide learner outcomes, to unit transfer goals, overarching Essential questions to topical essential questions and Habits of Mind to Dimensions of Growth. The next stage is to make the Interpersonal elements topical to the unit of study. After this the elements need to be mapped to determine gaps, commonalities and redundancies.
The study has shown that there is an urgent need for education to adapt to the ever changing needs of the student. Employers today value problem solving skills more than they value the grades from an archaic system of education. There is a need for schools to report student progress on the defined competencies a student must demonstrate in a particular school level and subject area. This will reduce unnecessary competitiveness amongst each other and promote a need to progress from within.
There is a need to connect the required skills with the required assessments in order to produce the required individual. This shift will result in the increase of engagement within students who demand more from education today. The study has shown that this required transformation must include the implementation of cognitive learning to the curriculum. This enables students to use their thinking skills to solve problems in authentic real world situations which equates to what the employers of today are pleading for. The research has shown that the introduction of cognitive dispositions such as the Habits of Mind and Interpersonal Learning can improve student achievement in these tasks and therefore should be implemented into the curriculum. However, this also requires a change in policy, curriculum, content and assessment methods to make learning relevant, effective, engaging and to align with employment needs. If the one-size-fits-all was meant to power the industrial age with a largely static body of knowledge, personalized learning with its focus on the learner as a unique individual, with existing skills, interests, abilities and distinct needs that shape personalized pathways is highly suited for the knowledge age that will require navigating through a sea of rapidly evolving information and content, and the need to acquire new skills quickly, as part of a lifelong learning journey.
It is evident that there are different perspectives on definition, implementation and how personalization affects student achievement. . As implementation spreads, the research base that appraises these approaches needs to mature and change. This paper has argued that personalization will only be successful when it is implemented within a framework and philosophy which gives students the opportunities for voice, choice and control. If institutions drive personalization through solely teacher generated resources and pedagogy the students will not be able to develop the cognitive thinking skills required to become successful problem solvers.
In regards to student achievement, the research outlined in this paper supports and furthers the recent literature on the importance of epistemic cognition, and also points towards necessary areas of further research. The research calls for further studies to understand the full potential and effectiveness of Interpersonal learning strategies (Gross & DeArmond, 2018). More longitudinal data are needed to see what the results of student achievement are with Interpersonal learning (Pane et al., 2015). The data analysis from this study will help determine whether the integration of digital content, the increased emphasis on student decision making, data-driven instructional practices, and timely feedback to support student learning are effective strategies in increasing student achievement.
In terms of curriculum planning, there is now a requirement for Interpersonal learning elements to be embedded within the desired results stage of the UBD framework. It is also important to make these goals topical and relatable to the unit of study. This work has already begun by translating the schoolwide learner outcomes, to unit transfer goals, overarching Essential questions to topical essential questions and Habits of Mind to Dimensions of Growth. The next stage is to make the Interpersonal elements topical to the unit of study. After this the elements need to be mapped to determine gaps, commonalities and redundancies.
References
ACS WASC Overview – Accrediting Commission for Schools (n.d.) . Available at: https://www.acswasc.org/about/acs-wasc-overview/ (Accessed: 15 August 2021).
ASCD Webinar: What Matters Most as a New School Year Begins? (n.d.) . Available at: https://www2.smartbrief.com/sharedSummary/index.jsp?briefId=3E572E12-3FBC-11D5-AD13-000244141872&issueId=46859C8F-B87B-4EC8-8B2B-9CA2CDAA9974 ©Id=BD487138-BB5F-4C3F-A620-1CD1C669D993 (Accessed: 22 August 2021).
Bernacki, M.L. and Walkington, C. (2018) The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (6): 864.
Bray, B. and McClaskey, K. (2010) Personalization vs differentiation vs individualization. Recuperado de https://ideas. education. Alberta. ca/media/81484/personalizationvsdifferentiationvsindividualization. pdf.
Bray, B. and McClaskey, K. (2014) Make learning personal: The what, who, wow, where, and why. Corwin Press.
Bray, B. and McClaskey, K. (2015) Personalization vs Differentiation vs Individualization Report (PDI) v3. Viitattu, 16: 2015.
Bray, B. and McClaskey, K. (2017) How to personalize learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Brusilovsky, P. and Peylo, C. (2003) Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 13.
Cannella, G.S. and Reiff, J.C. (1994) Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher education quarterly, pp. 27–38.
Carr, S. (2010) Personalization: a rough guide (revised edition). London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., et al. (2004a) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., et al. (2004b) Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice.
Corley, E.L. (1997) A Constructivist Interpretation of Attitude towards Science.
Costa, A.L. and Kallick, B. (2004) Launching self-directed learners. Educational leadership, 62: 51–57.
Costa, A.L. and Kallick, B. (2008) Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. ASCD.
Cutler, T., Waine, B. and Brehony, K. (2007) A new epoch of individualization? Problems with the ‘personalization of public sector services. Public administration, 85 (3): 847–855.
Davies, B. and Bansel, P. (2007) Neoliberalism and education. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 20 (3): 247–259.
Dickhauser, O. and Meyer, W. (2006) Gender differences in young children’s math ability attributions. Psychology Science, 48 (1): 3.
Fullan, M. (2009) Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of educational change, 10 (2): 101–113.
Geake, J. (2008) Neuromythologies in education. Educational research, 50 (2): 123–133.
Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., et al. (2009) Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward. Routledge.
Halverson, R., Kelley, C. and Shaw, J. (2014) A Call for Improved School Leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 95: 57–60. doi:10.1177/003172171409500612.
Haney, J.J. and McArthur, J. (2002) Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86 (6): 783–802.
Hargreaves, P.J. (2010) Personalising learning: Principals’ perspectives. PhD Thesis, The University of Waikato.
Heale, R. and Twycross, A. (2015) Validity and reliability in quantitative studies.
Evidence-based nursing, 18 (3): 66–67.
Hunkins, F.P. and Ornstein, A.C. (2016) Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Pearson Education.
Institute for the Future & Dell Technologies, 2017 (n.d.) .
Jorgensen, C.G. (2015) Discovering a Route to Revitalize the Foundations of Education: Reflective Thinking from Theory to Practice. Educational foundations, 28: 121–133.
Kallick, B. and Zmuda, A. (2017) Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. ASCD.
Kallio, J.M. and Halverson, R. (2020) Distributed leadership for personalized learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52 (3): 371–390.
Kay, K. and Greenhill, V. (2012) The Education Leader’s Guide: 7 Steps Toward 21st Century Schools and Districts. Allyn & Bacon.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Long, Y. and Aleven, V. (2013) “Supporting students’ self-regulated learning with an open learner model in a linear equation tutor.” In International conference on artificial intelligence in education. 2013. Springer. pp. 219–228.
Merriam, S.B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from” Case Study Research in Education.” . ERIC.
Muscott (2018) A study of the relationship between ‘Habits of Mind’ and ‘Performance Task’ achievement in an International School in South-east Asia. Available at: https://www.habitsofmindinstitute.org/research.
National Model United Nations (n.d.) . Available at: https://www.nmun.org/ (Accessed: 28 August 2021).
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.
Newman, I., Benz, C.R. and Ridenour, C.S. (1998) Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. SIU Press.
Newton, P.M. (2015) The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in psychology, 6: 1908.
Osman, A.A. (2016) Effect of habits of mind program on the development of positive thinking and the level of learning basic soccer skills among students of the Faculty of Physical Education. Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education & Sport/Science, Movement & Health, 16 (2).
Pane, J.F., Steiner, E.D., Baird, M.D., et al. (2017) How Does Personalized Learning Affect Student Achievement? RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9994.html (Accessed: 25 August 2021).
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., et al. (2008) Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological science in the public interest, 9 (3): 105–119.
Patall, E.A., Cooper, H. and Robinson, J.C. (2008) The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings.
Psychological bulletin, 134 (2): 270.
Pellini, A. (2005) Decentralisation of education in Cambodia: Searching for spaces of participation between traditions and modernity. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35 (2): 205–216.
Piaget, J. (1964) Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of research in science teaching, 2 (3): 176–186.
Pilley, A.J. (2016) The role of technology in personalized learning and the effect on student achievement. PhD Thesis, Lindenwood University.
Potter, M.K. (2013) Constructivism in the Shadow of a Dead God. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 7 (1).
Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., et al. (2013) Personalized learning: lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal, 39 (4): 654–676. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2012.669747.
Pratt, C.J. (2019) Blended Learning In Elementary Schools: An Interdependent Enterprise.
Reeve, J. (2009) Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational psychologist, 44 (3): 159–175.
Rickabaugh, J. (2016) Tapping the power of personalized learning: A roadmap for school leaders. ASCD.
Riener, C. and Willingham, D. (2010) The myth of learning styles. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 42 (5): 32–35.
Riveros, A., Newton, P. and Burgess, D. (2012) A Situated Account of Teacher Agency and Learning: Critical Reflections on Professional Learning Communities. Canadian journal of education, 35 (1): 202–216.
Ronan, A. (2015) Every teacher’s guide to assessment. Edumic connecting education and.
Rose, D.H. and Gravel, J.W. (2012) Curricular opportunities in the digital age. Jobs for the future.
Russell, V. and Riley, T. (2011) Personalising learning in secondary schools: Gifted education leading the way. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 16 (1).
Schmid, R. and 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.
Schunk, D.H. (1996) Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance.
Schwartz, B. (2004) The paradox of choice: Why more is less. In 2004. Ecco New York.
Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S., et al. (2007) An investigation of personalised learning approaches used by schools. Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Smith, C.V. and Cardaciotto, L. (2011) Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11 (1): 53–61.
Special Report / Why Students Drop Out (n.d.) . Available at: https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/why-students-drop-out (Accessed: 23 August 2021).
Steiner, E.D., Hamilton, L.S., Peet, E.D., et al. (2015) Continued Progress: Promising Evidence on Personalized Learning: Survey Results Addendum. RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1365z2.html (Accessed: 25 August 2021).
STONEHOUSE, L.P., Allison, P. and Carr, D. (2011) “Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates: Ancient Greek perspectives on experiential learning.” In Sourcebook of experiential education. Routledge. pp. 32–39.
Swan, C. (2017) Personalised learning: understandings and effectiveness in practice.
Tsai, Y.-S., Perrotta, C. and Gašević, D. (2020) Empowering learners with personalised learning approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45 (4): 554–567.
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., et al. (2007) Impact 2007: Personalising learning with technology.
Vollrath, D. (2016) Developing Costa and Kallick’s Habits of Mind Thinking for Students with a Learning Disability and Special Education Teachers. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Socio-cultural theory. Mind in society, 6: 52–58.
Wagner, T. and Dintersmith, T. (2016) Most likely to succeed. Learning & the Brain, Boston, MA.
Walkington, C. and Bernacki, M.L. (2020) Appraising research on personalized learning: Definitions, theoretical alignment, advancements, and future directions.
Watkins, C. (2009) Collaborative learning. School Leadership Today, 1 (1): 22–25.
Wiggins, G.P., Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design. Ascd.
Wolfe, R.E. and Poon, J.D. (2015) Educator Competencies for Personalized, Learner-Centered Teaching. Jobs For the Future.
Zhang, L. and Nouri, J. (2019) A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141: 103607.
Zmuda, A., Curtis, G. and Ullman, D. (2015) Learning personalized: The evolution of the contemporary classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
Zull, J.E. (2004) The art of changing the brain. Educational Leadership, 62 (1): 68–72.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
General Document Comments 0
