Personalised learning: a familiar concept to teachers? And which teachers? - A questionnaire- based survey of 43 secondary school teachers Dominique Verpoorten Open University of the Netherlands / European School Mol

Context Staff training day, European School Mol (Belgium) November 10th, 2008

Objectives Familiarity of teachers with the concept of personalisation Differences between familiar and non familiar teachers Evaluation of the questionnaire

Method Questionnaire survey: Verpoorten, D., Logan, K., & Aviram, R. (2006). Beliefs and expectations about personalised learning – A pre-questionnaire. : iClass project. 43/60 questionnaires

Treatment methodology Correlation of two variables, one of them usually being: –claimed familiarity with the notion of personalized learning (yes/no); –claimed practice of this notion (never/sometimes/regularly/often)

Results 19 underlying hypothesis but presentation of only 8 of them A large portion of flawed data –Due to badly phrased questions –Due to lack of answers in sub-groups (taught domain, number of pupils in the classroom, language…) Even with the most acceptable data, we usually work on small numbers –Generalization forbidden –Observation that data seem (not) to go in the direction of the hypothesis

H1 – A majority of teachers claim to be familiar with the concept of personalisation. Familiar: 20 teachers Non familiar: 20 teachers No answer: 3 Hypothesis 1 not supported

Open question: “How would you define the concept of personalisation?” Answers grouped in 5 categories: Most often referred categories for the whole group = categories 4-5 Most often referred categories for the « familiar » = categories 4-5

H6 – The more a teacher experienced personalized learning as a student, the more familiar he/she claims to be with the concept of personalisation Just 27.91% of the teachers questioned had had experience of personalisation. This is a low number, but among those, 66.67% said that they were familiar with the concept. Hypothesis 6 supported

Waldeck's study – The learner's viewpoint on PL Factors that students considered meaningful and relevant for characterizing an educative experience as "personalised": –instructor shares his/her time outside of class, instructor –instructor provides counsel to student, instructor exhibits competent communication; instructor –instructor cultivates social and personal relationships with students, instructor exhibits flexibility with course requirements

H10 – A majority of teachers claiming familiarity with personalisation will regard it as a highly urgent project for education The category “Average urgency” was chosen most often (20 teachers), followed by “High urgency” (16 teachers). Disregarding the poorly represented categories, “High urgency” had the highest proportion of those claiming familiarity with personalised learning, with 56.3%, followed by “Maximum urgency” (50%, but for 2 individuals), and in third place “Average urgency” with 40%. Hypothesis 10 supported

Open question: urgent concerns that teachers cite as competing with personalisation Answers sorted in 4 categories –Subject management (evaluation/remediation/knowle dge) –Autonomy (self-regulated learning) –Structure (number of pupils, homogeneous levels) –Others (reforms, administrative burden, interdiciplinarity, attitude) Most often referred category for the whole group = Subject management Most often referred category for the « familiar » = autonomy

H11 – Claims to practise personalised learning is positively related with claims of familiarity with the concept of personalisation Most represented categories for the whole group = “From time to time” is the, followed by “Often”. “Never” was not chosen at all. Most represented categories for the “familiar” = “Often” is top, followed by “Regularly” (33.3%), and finally “From time to time” Hypothesis 11 partly supported

H 15 – A majority of teachers regard the practice of personalisation as desirable for all pupils 24 of those questioned felt that the practice of personalisation is desirable for all pupils. 14 felt that this was not the case, and 4 believed that it depends on other factors (class size, subject matter, etc.). The teachers who answered “yes” to the question about familiarity with the concept of personalisation represented 62.5% of those who believed that the practice is desirable for all pupils, compared with just 21.43% of those who did not think this. Hypothesis 15 supported

Why is personalisation desirable? Answers difficult to interpret (8 teachers failed to answer + category “Others": 14) Answers coded in four categories –as a means of taking better account of individual learning styles (category “Individualisation – Individual style” - 9); –as a means of improving pupils’ results and the effectiveness of teaching (category “Improved results – Effectiveness” - 7); –due to its impact on pupils’ motivation (category “Motivation” - 5); –others

H17 – A majority of teachers believe it is possible to increase personalised learning in their classes 32 people answered “yes” and 5 people answered “no” to the question. 6 people did not answer the question Of the 20 people who answered “yes” to the question about familiarity with the concept of personalisation, 17 answer “yes” regarding possibility of increase, namely 85% (65% for non familiar) Hypothesis 17 supported

H18 – The main factor facilitating greater personalisation is smaller pupil groups. Question:What might help you practise personalised learning more? Having more time was the most frequently cited factor (17 answers). Small group sizes were cited 8 times. Extra resources and equipment, and additional knowledge and experience were cited about equally often (7 and 6 answers respectively). The category “Resources and equipment” is the one which attracted the highest percentage of answers from people who answered “yes” to the question about familiarity with the concept of personalisation (57.14%), followed by “Time” (52.94%). In the categories “Knowledge…” and “Small groups”, they account for 50% of the answers given. Hypothesis 18 not supported

Educational implications In a European school which can be expected to be open to a variety of educational influences and which has a reputation of openness to innovation the teaching staff does not seem as aware about the notion of personalised learning as one could expect. However, the expansion of personalised learning in day- to-day practice is, in the eye of most teachers, seen as desirable and possible under certain conditions. Teacher professional development and personalized learning promotion strategies can benefit from a close observation of those "first-line" practitioners' perceptions.

Methodological implications Lesson 1 – The questionnaire must be improved Lesson 2 – The sample must be expanded Lesson 3 – The two main discriminating variables must receive more attention Lesson 4 – A confrontation with objective data would be welcome