Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Personalization will be a key element in the future of executive education. Personalization is based on a match between student characteristics (user model) and didactic treatments (teaching model). This article distinguishes two matching strategies: an educational institution can deliver on demand, or can anticipate the demand and offer students the most appropriate treatment based on prior knowledge of each student's characteristics. Anticipating demand is the most challenging strategy. Its validity depends on the independence of the students' characteristics: in the case of interdependency, prediction of an optimal match is virtually impossible. The assumption of independence was investigated for a subset of students' characteristics – that of learning preferences. A conceptual model, consisting of four dimensions, was used to construct 16 combinations of didactic treatments. We found evidence in favour of a high degree of interdependency among the dimensions of the conceptual model. With these results in mind, students must be allowed to choose for themselves whether more didactic treatments should be made available.

Keywords

personalization learning preference learning style business education distance education e-learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bajraktarevic

Hall

Fullick

(2003), ‘Incorporating learning styles in hypermedia environment: Empirical evaluation’, paper presented at AH2003, Nottingham, 26–30 August.

Barker

Richards

Banerji

(1993), ‘Case studies in electronic performance support’, paper presented at AIED ′93, World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Edinburgh, 23–27 August.

Broadbent

(2002), ABCs of e-Learning: Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Pitfalls, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, New York.

Brusilovsky

(2003), ‘Developing adaptive educational hypermedia systems; from design models to authoring tools’, in Murray

Blessing

Ainsworth

S.E.

, eds, Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments, Kluwer, Amsterdam.

Cassidy

(2004), ‘Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures’, Educational Psychology, Vol 24, No 4, pp 419–444.

Clarke

(2004), ‘ALTAS: Adult learning through adaptive systems’, paper presented at EdTech 2004, Raleigh, NC, 22 September.

De Bra

Houben

G.-J.

(1999), ‘AHAM: A Dexter-based reference model for adaptive hypermedia’, paper presented at the ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Darmstadt, 21–25 February.

Desmedt

Valcke

(2004), ‘Mapping the learning styles “jungle”: An overview of the literature based on citation analysis’, Educational Psychology, Vol 24, No 4, pp 445–464.

Dolog

Henze

Nejdl

Sintek

(2004a), ‘Personalization in distributed elearning environments’, paper presented at 13th International World Wide Web Conference, New York, 19–21 May.

10.

Dolog

Henze

Nejdl

Sintek

(2004b), ‘The personal reader: Personalizing and enriching learning resources using Semantic Web technologies’, paper presented at AH2004, International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems, Eindhoven, 23–26 August.

11.

Dutta

Majumdar

(2002), ‘Flexible learning and the adaptive delivery of online content’, paper presented at Vidyakash 2002, Conference for Online Leaning, Mumbai, 17–19 December.

12.

Felder

(1993), ‘Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education’, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol 23, No 5, pp 286–290.

13.

Ford

Chen

S.Y.

(2001), ‘Matching/mismatching revisited: An empirical study of learning and teaching styles’, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 32, No 1, pp 5–22.

14.

Gardner

(1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York.

15.

Graff

(1999), ‘Cognitive style and hypertext structures’, paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network, Preston.

16.

Greenagel

(2002), ‘The illusion of e-learning: Why we're missing out on the promise of technology’, White Paper, League for Innovation in the Community College, Phoenix, AZ.

17.

Harris

R.N.

Dwyer

W.O.

Leeming

F.C.

(2003), ‘Are learning styles relevant in Web-based instruction?’, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol 29, No 1, pp 13–28.

18.

Keirsey

(1987), Portraits of Temperament, Prometheus Nemesis, Del Mar, CA.

19.

Kolb

D.A.

(1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

20.

Pask

(1976), ‘Styles and strategies of learning’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 46, pp 128–148.

21.

Rosenberg

(2000), E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. McGraw-Hill, New York.

22.

Russell

(1998), The ‘No Significant Difference Phenomenon’ as Reported in 248 Research Reports, Summaries and Papers, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

23.

Ruttenbur

Spickler

Lurie

(2000), eLearning: The Engine of the Knowledge Economy, Morgan Keegan Inc, Memphis, TN.

24.

Salmon

(2000), E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, Kogan Page, London.

25.

Sampson

(2001), ‘Current and future research and technology: Developments in e-learning’, paper presented at 2nd International Conference on New Horizons in Industry and Education, Milos, 13–14 September.

26.

Urdan

T.A.

Weggen

C.C.

(2000), Corporate E-Learning: Exploring a New Frontier, Hambrecht and Co, San Francisco, CA.

27.

Van den Brande

(1993), Flexible and Distance Learning, John Wiley Chichester.

28.

Wolf

(2002), ‘iWeaver: Towards “learning style”-based e-learning in computer science education’, paper presented at ACE 2003, Fifth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Adelaide, 4–7 February.

Personalized Course Delivery

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References