Participate and share: Poster 
There is a need to understand how to incorporate cultural responsiveness into personalized learning technologies. We identified six principles for designing personalized learning systems that are culturally responsive. We conducted focus group interviews with teachers to understand how these practices were already being realized in classrooms, as well as barriers. During this presentation, attendees will learn about the proposed framework and the input received from educators so far. Attendees will be invited to respond and ask questions about the framework and the work done in developing it.
Attendees will receive an overview of research to develop a framework for culturally responsive personalized learning, including feedback received from teachers in the process of understanding how this framework may apply in classroom settings.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004
Brown, J. C., & Crippen, K. J. (2016). Designing for culturally responsive science education through professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 470-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1136756
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: a meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831201900223
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Edelen, D., & Bush, S. B. (2021). Moving Toward Inclusiveness in STEM With Culturally Responsive Teaching. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 57(3), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2021.1935178
D’Mello, S.K., Lehman, B.A., & Graesser, A.C. (2011). A motivationally supportive affect-sensitive AutoTutor. In R.A. Calvo & S.K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 113-126). Springer.
Forbes-Riley, K., & Litman, D. (2011). Benefits and challenges of real-time uncertainty detection and adaptation in a spoken dialogue computer tutor. Speech Communication, 53, 1115-1136.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a Social Conversational Pedagogical Agent: Design Challenges and Methodological approaches. In D. Perez-Marin, & I. Pascual-Nieto (Eds.), Conversational Agents and Natural Language Interaction: Techniques and Effective Practices (pp. 128-155). IGI Global.
Hussar, W.J., and Bailey, T.M. (2020). Projections of Education Statistics to 2028 (NCES 2020-024). U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020024
Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
Kumar, R., Ai, H., Beuth, J. L., & Rosé, C. P. (2010). Socially capable conversational tutors can be effective in collaborative learning situations. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS2010) (pp 156-164). Heidelberg: Springer.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.K.A. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Muñiz, J. (2019). Culturally Responsive Teaching: A 50-State Survey of Teaching Standards. New America: Education Policy Report https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/culturally-responsive-teaching/
Pane, J.F., Steiner, E.D, Baird, M.D., Hamilton, L.S., Pane, J.D. (2017). Informing Progress. Insights on Personalized Learning Implementation and Effects. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2000/RR2042/RAND_RR2042.pdf
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Van Lehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2020). Appraising research on personalized learning: Definitions, theoretical alignment, advancements, and future directions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1747757
We consider culturally responsive personalized learning (CRPL) as an approach to teaching and learning that acknowledges how learners’ personal, social, cultural, and linguistic contexts influence their educational experiences and which also adapts to meet learners’ needs based on those contexts.” This approach emphasizes the importance of adapting instruction to best support individual learners’ needs and interests in addition to their social, cultural, and linguistic contexts. In developing this framework, we drew from existing literature on culturally responsive teaching practices (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2009, 2014; Paris, 2012), as well as personalized learning (Bloom, 1984; Cohen et al., 1982; Pane et al., 2017; Van Lehn, 2011).
Prior research on culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1994), responsive (Gay, 2000), and sustaining (Paris, 2012) pedagogy has identified key practices that enable educators to leverage students’ funds of knowledge, which refers to the variety of lived experiences and cultural backgrounds in the classroom to enhance learning. Some personalized learning systems provide adaptive support based on affective (D’Mello et al., 2011; Forbes et al., 2011) and social aspects of learning (Gulz et al, 2011; Kumar et al., 2010). However, past work to develop personalized learning systems, particularly those which are technology-enabled learning, has largely concentrated on providing adaptive learning experiences to support students by providing instruction based on their level of proficiency in the target skill or knowledge domain (Van Lehn, 2006). Though both culturally responsive and personalized approaches to teaching and learning converge on adapting instruction based on learner characteristics to promote academic success, they each have emphasized various aspects of learning. Approaches to culturally responsive teaching support adapting instruction based on characteristics of students and their learning contexts that are often overlooked but do not necessarily provide directives for adapting instruction at the level of the individual learner. On the other hand, while personalized learning approaches do attempt to adapt instruction to the individual learner, the focus on proficiency tends to overlook the characteristics of the student and their context which could critically support learning. Recognizing the strengths of each approach, we, therefore, saw a need to understand how these perspectives could be incorporated into a more cohesive framework to support the design and development of personalized learning systems that are culturally responsive. For example, such knowledge could be useful for the design of culturally responsive personalized learning systems that are effective for a diverse range of learners. After reviewing existing literature, we identified six key principles:
- Responsiveness: Provide a personalized, adaptive experience to learners
- Agency: Create opportunities for learners to play an active role during learning activities
- Social Movements: Include topics that reflect current and past social justice movements and other movements that promote equity
- Connection to Lived Experiences: Incorporate topics that reflect the diverse lived experiences of learners within and beyond the classroom
- Shared Power: Involve diverse stakeholders (e.g., learners, teachers, parents/guardians, school leadership) in developing and/or selecting learning materials
- Opportunities for Collaboration: Facilitate situations for learners to work with their peers in partners or small groups
After identifying these key aspects of CRPL, it was essential to understand how these practices were already being realized within the classroom context or potentially could be with the right support provided to teachers. We next wanted to align the theoretical framework with practice by gathering information from teachers about their experiences with CRPL instructional approaches (aim 1). Finally, we sought to identify supports that teachers need to better implement CRPL in the classroom, particularly supports that might be technology-enabled (aim 2).
Recruitment of Participants
A screening survey was administered through a network of partnering teachers and schools. To be eligible, teachers must have had current experience teaching middle or high school students in a STEM subject area. Teachers (N=11; 6 female, 5 male) from across the United States were recruited to participate in the virtual focus groups. The participating teachers had experience teaching STEM in grades 7-12. In total, 3 focus groups were conducted, consisting of 3-4 teachers each, using the Zoom video conferencing application between July and August 2022.
Procedures
The interview transcripts were analyzed by three trained research assistants, each of whom coded two of the transcripts. We used an open-coding approach (see Corbin & Strauss, 1990) to label text within interview transcripts with substantive codes describing the various approaches to teaching discussed. Research assistants were instructed to code instances where culturally responsive teaching, personalized learning, and CRPL practices were referenced by applying those labels to the corresponding text. We also wanted to understand the barriers that prevented them, the technology that supported them, and the teacher training that enabled such practices. Research assistants also noted if specific characteristics of the learners were mentioned in describing a pedagogical approach (e.g., English language proficiency, grade level). Portions of the coded transcripts were reviewed by members of the research team. Discrepancies that emerged in the coded transcripts were resolved through discussion and by reaching a consensus.
The analyses conducted so far point to several overarching trends. We noted specific instances in which teachers described culturally responsive teaching, personalized learning, and CRPL. Many of the teachers conveyed interest and curiosity in understanding how culturally responsive practices can be better incorporated into personalized learning activities. In numerous instances, teachers described teaching practices that included aspects of culturally responsive teaching or personalized learning; however, relatively few discussed attempts to fully integrate the two approaches.
Where examples of culturally responsive teaching were mentioned, it was often discussed in reference to linguistic diversity. For example, one teacher even equated diversity with immigration and non-native English-speaking status, commenting
“For diverse learners, we're talking about, you know, like students who are coming from different - or their parents are coming from different countries - they have like English as their main maybe a second language. So, I use a lot of visual aids and videos as anchors...”
In several instances, teachers described differentiating instruction based on students’ knowledge of skills in a particular domain, though it was unclear the extent to which instructions were truly personalized. For example, one teacher commented “Students that don't have quite as much preparation, I can put them to work on similar things where they do more, more simulations that are there more for their level.” However, the same teacher also noted the challenge of preparing differentiated instruction, commenting that “I have to put [time] to prepare the lesson and do it, where I differentiate and have different levels takes a tremendous amount of preparation time.”
When CRPL practices were mentioned, teachers often noted the selection of content, particularly content reflecting diverse people or cultures, as being a key consideration. One teacher noted, that in
“... my architecture class, I will put up a building, […] like an engineering achievement, and I'll try and vary that as well, so we get like different cultures, different races, absolutely different genders...
Though it was clear that teachers were thinking about how to actively incorporate CRPL in the classroom, there was uncertainty about how to get the necessary support to implement such practices. On several occasions, teachers expressed discontent with existing professional development opportunities, noting difficulty translating the ideas into content-specific practices. In one instance, a teacher suggested spending more time with colleagues to have “an opportunity to sit down and kind of dive into some things and figure out what would work best,” presumably to better understand the students and school community and how to serve them.
When asked about how technology could be used to support the implementation of CRPL, several teachers had practical concerns, although they noted that such a technology could be useful. One teacher explained, “I think again with […] so many backgrounds and various backgrounds in your classroom, from a technology perspective that'd be hard to really get that in place.” Another teacher added, “I would welcome it as well, but uh, I don't understand how it could be implemented.”
Understanding what teachers are currently doing and what needs they require to support culturally responsive personalized learning practices has clear implications for future research and practice. Such information can be used to implement and design scalable learning technologies that better meet the needs of culturally diverse learners by communicating their needs to teachers, providing a source of insight for personalized and culturally relevant formative assessment and feedback. The feedback provided by teachers through these focus groups suggests that they are interested in both cultural responsiveness and technology-enabled personalized instruction. However, there is some uncertainty about how to implement an integrated CRPL approach. Such findings suggest a need for the development of more effective teacher support in parallel with the development of a technology-enabled personalized learning system to support culturally responsive practices. We note, of course, that these findings are limited to the small sample of teachers who were available and interested in participating in the focus groups, and thus further research is needed to generalize these findings.
In looking to the future, we will administer a survey to a nationally representative sample of K-12 teachers to understand how they are currently using CRPL instructional practices, and what challenges they may face that are preventing them from doing so. Furthermore, continued project work has sought stakeholder input by involving teachers in co-design focus groups to identify the features of personalized learning systems most likely to support culturally responsive instructional practices. These findings are likely to lead to the development of technology-enabled solutions that support teachers in adapting instruction to meet the needs of individual students with experiences reflecting a variety of social, cultural, and linguistic contexts.
Brown, J. C., & Crippen, K. J. (2016). Designing for culturally responsive science education through professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 470-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1136756
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Edelen, D., & Bush, S. B. (2021). Moving Toward Inclusiveness in STEM With Culturally Responsive Teaching. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 57(3), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2021.1935178
D’Mello, S.K., Lehman, B.A., & Graesser, A.C. (2011). A motivationally supportive affect-sensitive AutoTutor. In R.A. Calvo & S.K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 113-126). Springer.
Forbes-Riley, K., & Litman, D. (2011). Benefits and challenges of real-time uncertainty detection and adaptation in a spoken dialogue computer tutor. Speech Communication, 53, 1115-1136.
Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a Social Conversational Pedagogical Agent: Design Challenges and Methodological approaches. In D. Perez-Marin, & I. Pascual-Nieto (Eds.), Conversational Agents and Natural Language Interaction: Techniques and Effective Practices (pp. 128-155). IGI Global.
Hussar, W.J., and Bailey, T.M. (2020). Projections of Education Statistics to 2028 (NCES 2020-024). U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020024
Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
Kumar, R., Ai, H., Beuth, J. L., & Rosé, C. P. (2010). Socially capable conversational tutors can be effective in collaborative learning situations. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS2010) (pp 156-164). Heidelberg: Springer.
Muñiz, J. (2019). Culturally Responsive Teaching: A 50-State Survey of Teaching Standards. New America: Education Policy Report https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/culturally-responsive-teaching/
Walkington, C., & Bernacki, M. L. (2020). Appraising research on personalized learning: Definitions, theoretical alignment, advancements, and future directions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1747757
Return
Trips and Tours