Personalized Education to Increase Interest

Abstract

A long-standing ideal of school education has been to connect instruction to a student’s life outside school in order to render subject matter interesting. New technologies enable instructors to personalize learning materials to increase situational interest. After distinguishing three main methods to personalize education (context personalization, choice, and active personalization), we review recent intervention studies designed to increase situational interest, which is necessary for the emergence of individual interest. Across all three kinds of interventions, some studies point to the possibility of increasing interest for students low in initial interest. Despite progress in developing personalized interventions for school practice, research on the theoretical mechanisms behind the success of the interventions has just begun.

Keywords

personalized education interest context personalization choice utility-value intervention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainley

Hidi

Berndorff

(2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Bradley

R. H.

(2005). Those who have, receive: The Matthew effect in early childhood intervention in the home environment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 1–26. doi:10.3102/00346543075001001

Bernacki

M. L.

Walkington

(2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 864–881. doi:10.1037/edu0000250

Brown

S. I.

Walter

M. I.

(2005). The art of problem posing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Canning

E. A.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2015). Teach it, don’t preach it: The differential effects of directly communicated and self-generated utility-value information. Motivation Science, 1, 47–71. doi:10.1037/mot0000015

Canning

E. A.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Priniski

S. J.

Hecht

C. A.

Tibbetts

Hyde

J. S.

(2018). Improving performance and retention in introductory biology with a utility-value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 834–849. doi:10.1037/edu0000244

Cordova

D. I.

Lepper

M. R.

(1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Dewey

(1975). Interest and effort in education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1913)

10.

Flowerday

Schraw

Stevens

(2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 93–114. doi:10.3200/JEXE.72.2.93-114

11.

Frenzel

A. C.

Goetz

Pekrun

Watt

H. M. G.

(2010). Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 507–537. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x

12.

Frenzel

A. C.

Pekrun

Dicke

A.-L.

Goetz

(2012). Beyond quantitative decline: Conceptual shifts in adolescents’ development of interest in mathematics. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1069–1082. doi:10.1037/a0026895

13.

Gaspard

Dicke

A.-L.

Flunger

Brisson

B. M.

Häfner

Nagengast

Trautwein

(2015). Fostering adolescents’ value beliefs for mathematics with a relevance intervention in the classroom. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1226–1240. doi:10.1037/dev0000028

14.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Canning

E. A.

Tibbetts

Priniski

S. J.

Hyde

J. S.

(2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 745–765. doi:10.1037/pspp0000075

15.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Priniski

S. J.

(2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education: The science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 409–435. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725

16.

Henriksen

E. K.

Dillon

Ryder

(Eds.). (2015). Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

17.

Hidi

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179. doi:10.3102/00346543070002151

18.

Hidi

Renninger

K. A.

(2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

19.

Høgheim

Reber

(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

20.

Høgheim

Reber

(2017). Eliciting mathematics interest: New directions for context personalization and example choice. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 597–613. doi:10.1080/00220973.2016.1268085

21.

Hulleman

C. S.

Godes

Hendricks

B. L.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880–895. doi:10.1037/a0019506

22.

Hulleman

C. S.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067

23.

Hulleman

C. S.

Kosovich

J. J.

Barron

K. E.

Daniel

D. B.

(2017). Making connections: Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 387–404. doi:10.1037/edu0000146

24.

Kapur

(2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning & Instruction, 39, 23–31.

25.

Keller

M. M.

Woolfolk Hoy

Goetz

Frenzel

A. C.

(2016). Teacher enthusiasm: Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 743–769. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y

26.

H.-Y.

Harter

C. A.

Liu

P.-L.

Thompson

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

27.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

Durik

A. M.

Conley

A. M.

Barron

K. E.

Tauer

J. M.

Karabenick

S. A.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 647–671. doi:10.1177/0013164409355699

28.

Lopez

C. L.

Sullivan

H. J.

(1992). Effect of personalization of instructional context on the achievement and attitudes of Hispanic students. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40, 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296895

29.

National Cancer Institute. (2015). NCI dictionary of cancer terms. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/personalized-medicine

30.

Patall

E. A.

Cooper

Robinson

J. C.

(2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270

31.

Reber

(2018). Making school meaningful: Linking psychology of education to meaning in life. Educational Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1428177

32.

Reber

Hetland

Chen

Norman

Kobbeltvedt

(2009). Effects of example choice on interest, control, and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 509–548. doi:10.1080/10508400903191896

33.

Renninger

K. A.

Hidi

S. E.

(2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. London, England: Routledge.

34.

Rothstein

Santana

(2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

35.

Sadik

(2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 487–506. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8

36.

Walkington

Bernacki

M. L.

(2014). Motivating students by “personalizing” learning around individual interests: A consideration of theory, design, and implementation issues. In Karabenick

S. A.

Urdan

T. C.

(Eds.), Motivational interventions (pp. 139–176). Bingley, England: Emerald.

37.

Walkington

Bernacki

M. L.

(2015). Students authoring personalized “algebra stories”: Problem-posing in the context of out-of-school interests. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40(Pt. B), 171–191. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.08.001

38.

Walkington

Bernacki

M. L.

(2018). Personalization of instruction: Design dimensions and implications for cognition. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86, 50–68. doi:10.1080/00220973.2017.1380590