Running head: ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS

Adaptive Learning Methods in Public Institutions of Higher Education Jane M. Sim California State University Monterey Bay

IST 524 Instructional Technology Dr. Su November 29, 2013

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS

Personalized instruction adapted to a learners ability and preferences, known as adaptive learning, has been an educational opportunity since the introduction of teaching machines in the 1960s. Since then, the application of adaptive learning methods has been largely confined to the for-profit tutoring industry. However, this instructional method is gaining attention as a solution to be implemented in higher education, particularly for the success of disadvantaged students. This essay introduces an overview of adaptive learning and the recent interest in those methods. In order to demonstrate what an attempt at incorporating adaptive learning solutions into public higher education looks like today, two specific examples are given followed by a critique of the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of each of those instances. Adaptive learning methods use data analytics to dynamically configure instruction and remediation, personalizing instruction to a learners needs. (Wassan, 1993). The idea of this possibility was born out of behaviorist learning theory, with the goal of modifying instruction being the modification of a learners behavioral outcome (Wassan, 1993). Practice questions that are adapted to an individual learners needs so the learner can achieve a desirable test score are representative of behavioral learning theory in adaptive learning. Cognitive, constructivist, and social-constructivist learning theories have also been applied to adaptive learning methods. Adapting instruction to a learners learning preferences is influenced by cognitive learning theory. Giving a learner power over to adjust their learning pathway applies construction learning theory. When an adaptive learning method concerns itself with facilitating student-to-student interaction along adapted learning pathways, social-constructivist learning theory is found.

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS

Since institutions of higher education are under increasing pressure to improve student retention, adaptive learning methods are being eyed as a solution to bolster student success (Jarret & Rajan, 2013). A poll conducted by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup in 2013, found over 50 percent of university and college president respondents agree or strongly agree that adaptive testing and learning could have a positive influence on higher education (Jaschik & Lederman, 2013). Valuing adaptive learning methods as instrumental to the success of disadvantaged students, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has sought to speed up the mainstreaming of adaptive learning in higher education by issuing grant money and commissioning Education Growth Advisors to report on the current marketplace of adaptive learning solutions (Jarret & Rajan, 2013). This effort indicates not only hope for adaptive learning solutions but acknowledges the challenge of implementing them in higher education. One of the companies featured as selling adaptive learning solutions in the Education Growth Advisors report Learning to Adapt: Understanding the Adaptive Learning Supplier Landscape, is McGraw-Hill Education with their product LearnSmart (Education Growth Advisors, 2013). As indicated in the report and as witnessed in my employment in higher education, the LearnSmart adaptive learning solution is most often sold through pitching the product to an individual instructor (Education Growth Advisors, 2013). This is how the implementation of LearnSmart often occurs: A sales person for McGraw-Hill Publishers, referred to as a book rep has a one-on-one conversation with an instructor, informing the instructor that if she chooses McGraw-Hills Anatomy text, it can be packaged with the LearnSmart product. The instructor is impressed by the potential of LearnSmart to adaptively assess students skill and knowledge levels to

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS track which topics students have mastered and which require further instruction and

practice (LearnSmart Works, 2013). When the instructor submits her book order to the campus bookstores, the bookstore interprets the bundling of the LearnSmart technology with the Anatomy textbook as mandatory, not offering the textbook at a stand-alone price. Some students may purchase the Anatomy textbook by itself online, some may forgo purchasing any course materials, some may purchase the bundle from the bookstore and later feel frustrated by the additional cost because using LearnSmart didnt turn out to be a course requirement. In a public institution lacking campus-wide technology to support adaptive learning, selecting an adaptive learning solution from a publishing company may be the only recourse an instructor has to employ an adaptive learning method in his or her instruction. The strength of this mode of implementation is it doesnt require waiting for institutional change or seeking buy-in from any other parties. However, externalization of the cost of this adaptive learning solution to students is a great weakness. The cost of textbooks are already skyrocketing, bundling technology with textbooks further increases costs, and many students report not purchasing course materials at all due to the expense (Schick & Marklein, 2013). A disadvantaged student cant be helped by an adaptive learning solution they are priced out of using. Another weakness of this solution is LearnSmarts debatable quality. Studies conducted by McGraw-Hill demonstrate the success of LearnSmart (LearnSmart Works, 2013). However, research by two faculty members in a study of six schools found no significant improvement in student success rates between Anatomy and Physiology courses using LearnSmart and courses using online questions (Griff & Matter, 2013).

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS

Publishing companies represent a large portion of the adaptive learning solutions market place (Education Growth Advisors, 2013). Publishers specialize in course materials, but course materials only making up a portion of a learning environment, which also includes the learner, the school, fellow learners, the instructor, instructional designers, and tools (Wassan, 1997). Instructional solutions, such as adaptive learning solutions, are more powerfully designed when they center the learner and take the full learning environment into account (Wassan, 1997). Therefore, a better alternative to book reps pitching externalized sales to individual instructors, would be partnerships between publishers and institutions themselves, assuming the adaptive learning solution being offered is proven to be beneficial to student success. McGraw-Hill has started on the path towards large-scale implementations of LearnSmart through partnerships with the University of Minnesota, Indiana University and Western Governors University (Education Growth Advisors, 2013). They also collaborate with Blackboard, a learning management system (LMS) used by many campuses. Most public institutions of higher education offer a campus-wide LMS, a system used by instructors to develop web-based course notes and quizzes, to communicate with students, and to monitor and grade student progress and used by students to access those course notes, quizzes, other materials and activities, and communicate with the instructor and fellow students (Despotovic-Zrakic, Markovic, Bogdanovic, Barac, & Krco, 2012). As these systems already exist on campuses, have the potential to collect and analyze data, and are designed to offer a full e-learning learning environment, they are well positioned to offer adaptive learning solutions. Blackboard is a popular LMS that has formed partnerships that should allow it to provide robust adaptive learning solutions

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS

in the future. However, Moodle is a more popular LMS amongst financially restricted institutions of higher education because it is a free, open-source application. Moodle is less geared towards adaptive learning, however, with its strongest tools centered on social learning. The second example of an attempt at implementing adaptive learning in public higher education is not hypothetical at all0; it is an adaptive learning approach designed and tested by group of faculty at the University of Belgrade that capitalized on their own ability to collect and analyze data as well as Moodles grouping functionality (Despotovic-Zrakic, Markovic, Bogdanovic, Barac, & Krco, 2012). Using the FelderSilverman Learning Styles Model, they mapped types of instructional materials and Moodle activity tools to learning styles, collected data on their students learning styles and learning style preferences, and grouped them into three like-mind groups (Despotovic-Zrakic, Markovic, Bogdanovic, Barac, & Krco, 2012). Each group experienced a learning pathway that included instructional materials and activities adapted to their groups learning style. When compared to a traditionally offered course, the course using these adaptive learning pathways achieved statistically significant improvement, including an 11% increase in the number of students who passed the final exam (Despotovic-Zrakic, Markovic, Bogdanovic, Barac, & Krco, 2012). The strengths of this adaptive learning approach are its incorporation of cognitive and social-constructive learning theories and the making use of freely available tools. Because Moodle is used widely by institutions serving disadvantaged students, it would be highly beneficial if this solution could be used by others. However, the weakness of this approach is it is an impractical endeavor. Such an effort requires advanced data

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS analysis capability, as well as the time and willingness to create different versions of instructional materials and set up different versions of activities for each group of

students. The greatest weakness in this approach is it offers static rather than dynamic adaptivity since the learning pathways the student groups are put on at the start of the course do not change at any point based on new data collection. The Education Growth Advisors define this more static approach to adaptive learning as facilitator driven, and differentiate it from assessment driven adaptivity in which ongoing evaluation of learner performance results in near to real-time adjustments throughout instruction (Education Growth Advisors, 2013). Although difficult to replicate, the effort of this group of faculty to use Moodle in an adaptive learning solution reveals untapped potential of a free, open-source LMS. Moodle is planning to offer better learner analytics and adaptive quizzing functionality soon (New Features, 2013). Robust adaptive learning methods making use of Moodles strong social learning tools could be possible if the right learner analytic tools are realized. While adaptive quizzing accounts for learner behavior and ability, it would be valuable for Moodle to provide support for adapting instruction to learner preferences as analysis of e-learning system adaptivity have shown that cognitive characteristics of students, such as learning style, are of the great importance for successful adaptation (Despotovic-Zrakic, Markovic, Bogdanovic, Barac, & Krco, 2012). These two examples of what attempting to implement adaptive learning solutions in public higher education looks like today reflect the challenges of doing so with limited resources. They also provide a glimpse at what may soon be possible with future developments in publisher-to-institution partnerships and the improvement in learner

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS analytic tools within a free, open-source LMS. Since the buzz over adaptive learning

methods in higher education is fueled by the desire to provide learning pathways that are better supportive of the success of disadvantaged students, public institutions of higher education will have to be able to attempt adaptive learning solutions in spite of access to limited resources to realize those expectations.

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS References

Despotovic-Zrakic, M. , Markovic, A. , Bogdanovic, Z. , Barac, D. , & Krco, S. (2012). Providing adaptivity in moodle lms courses. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 326-338. Education Growth Advisors (2013). Learning to adapt: Understanding the adaptive learning supplier landscape. Retrieved on November 29, 2013 from http://edgrowthadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Learning-toAdapt_Report_Supplier-Landscape_Education-Growth-Advisors_April-2013.pdf Griff, E R, & Matter, S F. (2013). Evaluation of an adaptive online learning system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 170-176. Jarrett, J. & Rajan, R. (2013, March 12). Jumpstarting adaptive learning. Impatient Optimists. Retrived on November 12, 2013 from http://www.impatientoptimists. org/Posts/2013/03/Jumpstarting-Adaptive-Learning Jaschik, S. & Lederman, D. (2013). The 2013 Inside Higher Ed survey of college & university presidents. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved on November 30, 2013 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/affirmative-action-innovation-andfinancial-future-survey-presidents LearnSmart Works (2013). McGraw-Hill. Retrieved on November 30, 2013 from http://connect.customer.mcgraw-hill.com/studies/effectivenessstudies/learnsmart-works/ New Features (2013). Moodle. Retrieved on November 29, 2013 from http://docs.moodle.org/26/en/New_features

ADAPTIVE LEARNING METHODS Schick, D. & Marklein, M. B. (2013, August 20). College students say no to costly textbooks. USA Today. Retrived on November 21, 2013 from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/students-say-no-tocostly-textbooks/2664741/ Wasson, B. (1997). Advanced educational technologies: The learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(4), 571-594.

10