Abstract
Traction is growing for personalized learning (PL) as an educational innovation that aims to provide learning experiences to meet diverse learning needs. However, little research has investigated how PL is positioned in professional standards that provide guidance on teacher education across content-specific disciplines and for diverse learner populations. Using an alignment methodology, this study identified and analyzed 193 out of 654 educator preparation standard components in the U.S. education system for the presence of teaching practices that may better respond to the need for PL implementation. This research revealed different percentages of standard components reflecting expectations for educators to understand learner characteristics, tailor instruction to learner needs, and advocate for promoting learning outcomes for individual learners. Moreover, noticeable patterns exist among standards across disciplines and for diverse learner populations regarding how they focus on knowledge, competencies, and dispositions in relation to preparing educators for PL implementation.
Personalized learning (PL) is broadly conceptualized as an educational innovation that aims to provide adaptable and equitable learning experiences for all learners (Peterson, 2016). The innovation highlights meeting individual learning needs through flexible and adaptable learning experiences. This concept is not new in education, as adapting teaching to student needs has long been considered a critical element of effective instruction (Parsons et al., 2017). In recent years, there has been a surge in policy guidance on PL design and implementation (e.g., Patrick et al., 2013) partially attributed to rapid advancements in educational technology and big data, which make it possible to provide customized learning materials, pathways, and in-time feedback to individual students across learning contexts (Dishon, 2017). In addition, emerging evidence shows the effectiveness of PL on student learning across disciplines (e.g., Major et al., 2021). Whether it is the emergence of a new phenomenon or the recurrence of a long-standing education reform effort, the growing traction of PL increases the need to prepare educators for sufficient knowledge of learner diversity, encourages innovative use of strategies, and affirms commitment to supporting individual learners.
Significant variation exists in how PL is conceptualized and implemented across education policies, interdisciplinary research, and school contexts (Patrick et al., 2013; Walkington & Bernacki, 2020). To provide a comprehensive understanding, Zhang et al. (2020) put forth a working definition of PL based on an analysis of various definitions and implementation approaches from frequently cited research papers, policy documents, and educational organization reports. In the definition, PL was described as a systematic learning design that focuses on tailoring instruction to individual students’ strengths, preferences, needs, and goals that leads to well-rounded educational experiences including increased access to disciplines and 21st-century work skills. Personalized learning provides flexibility and supports in what, how, when, and where students learn and demonstrate mastery of learning (p. 268).
This multicomponent definition provides a comprehensive understanding of PL and reveals the complexity of its implementation. Other terms frequently used to convey similar concepts of PL include individualized learning and differentiated learning. Whereas individualized learning usually supports students with disabilities to achieve their individualized education program (IEP) goals (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004), differentiated learning is defined as an instructional model that “provides guidance for teachers in addressing student differences in readiness, interest, and learning profile” (Tomlinson, 2005, p. 287). Personalization provides a comprehensive school-wide integration of instructional strategies to support all learners, thus encompassing individualization and differentiation (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). To distinguish PL, many researchers argue that this recurring educational effort highlights student autonomy and supports self-regulated, self-initiated, and self-determined learning (McCarthy et al., 2020).
Supporting Educators in PL Implementation
Successful PL relies upon myriad factors within an integrated system that involves all educational stakeholders (Zhang et al., 2020). As a result, implementing PL is a complex process, which makes supporting educators challenging. However, the need to prepare educators for PL implementation is increasingly emphasized in education policies and research. For example, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) highlights the importance of providing pre- and in-service educators with support to personalize learning for all students to improve educational outcomes (Yang et al., 2021). Many states, such as Arizona, North Carolina, and New Jersey, have adopted guidance in their ESSA plans on enhancing access to professional learning opportunities for PL implementation (Zhang et al., 2020).
Despite the growing presence of PL in research and education policies, evidence continues to demonstrate the lack of confidence and unpreparedness experienced by many educators when working with diverse learners (Rowan et al., 2021). Previous research found that without sufficient preparation or professional development (PD), many educators experienced difficulties in meeting high requirements for PL implementation (Bingham et al., 2018). This research regarding PL implementation raises questions about how teacher education can better prepare pre-service educators with the knowledge and skills needed to support diverse learners in PL environments.
Teacher Education and Preparation Standards
Educator preparation plays a vital role in framing educator knowledge, skills, and dispositions for PK-12 teaching, which, in turn, influences student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Increased efforts in enhancing PL should consider how well educators are prepared to contribute to such system-wide initiatives. One way to investigate such considerations is to analyze whether professional standards guide the design of educator preparation programs (EPPs) that better prepare candidates for complex PL implementation. Generally, EPPs consist of standards-based instructional programming that prepares pre-service educators to be high-quality professionals in the classroom. EPPs are responsible for delivering instruction and assessing critical skills, knowledge, and dispositions to ensure that pre-service educators have mastered these elements (Pufpaff et al., 2017). Researchers posit that well-defined standards can be a powerful tool for establishing a foundation for professional discourse, improving the curriculum design and programming of EPPs, promoting reflection on practices, and encouraging educators’ active role in self-directed inquiry (Sinnema et al., 2017). On a macro level, professional standards can leverage greater quality in educator preparation if incorporated into accreditation and licensure policies or guidance that encourage teacher educators to adopt practices to drive success (Darling-Hammond, 2020).
Numerous professional standards exist at national, state, and local levels that differ in functions (e.g., licensure, certification, and accreditation; DeLuca & Bellara, 2013). There are standards for teaching specific learner populations (e.g., special education, gifted education), subjects (e.g., mathematics, science), and levels (e.g., middle level, early childhood). Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs), such as those in special education (i.e., Council for Exceptional Children [CEC]) and school specialists (i.e., American School Counselor Association [ASCA]), developed standards as guidelines for EPPs. In addition to SPA standards, there are generic standards that cut across all content and levels. For example, the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards are considered the most comprehensive set of principles, providing a granular representation of interrelated behaviors and practices, declarative and procedural knowledge, critical dispositions, and professional commitment for teacher candidates (Garner & Kaplan, 2020).
The need for PL to support diverse learners is prominent in the InTASC standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). Many standards acknowledge that equitable access and outcomes for learners require that teachers know how to work with each student as well as adapt, accommodate, and personalize instruction based on individual needs. Meanwhile, there is a growing use of the term “diverse learners” or “diversity” in professional standards (Rowan et al., 2021). The emergence of these terms offers researchers an opportunity to further define the concepts and share a vision as to how these terms can play a central role in implementing PL. However, little research has investigated how PL is referenced in professional standards that provide guidance on teacher education across content-specific disciplines and for diverse learner populations.
Purpose of This Study
This study aimed to analyze how educator preparation standards define knowledge, skills, and dispositions that pre-service educators need to develop for PL implementation. As discussed above, PL has demonstrated positive evidence of improving learning outcomes across disciplines for diverse learners (Major et al., 2021). Analyzing the presence or absence of PL in standards can identify the congruence, or lack thereof, between what is expected of educators given the current school-level PL initiatives and what educators are prepared to do. Moreover, results from such an analysis can inform the enactment of standards in guiding EPP programming as well as increase understanding and recognition among teacher educators toward preparing educators for PL implementation. The following questions guided our inquiry:
In the following sections, we first discussed a theoretically guided model of PL design. We took a holistic approach to analyzing preparation standards in relation to PL implementation. This approach was guided by complexity theory and its application in teacher education (Cochran-Smith et al., 2014). We then employed an alignment method to evaluate the extent to which standards embody the vision of teaching that drives PL as well as similarities and differences in standards across disciplines and learner populations.
Theoretical Framework
Theoretically Guided PL Design
The fundamental goal of PL is to maximize learning processes through instruction tailored to individual needs and interests. Despite emergent research, there is a lack of shared theoretical underpinnings for PL implementation (Walkington & Bernacki, 2020). To address the gap, Bernacki and colleagues (2021) proposed a three-level taxonomy of critical components of PL based on a systematic review of relevant research. According to the taxonomy, any effort to personalize learning begins with analyzing one or more learner characteristics; data about learners are then leveraged to inform designs of learning environments that are adaptable to meet individual learners’ needs and motivate them to obtain targeted learning outcomes. Grounded in learning theories relevant to personalization, the researchers elaborated on learner characteristics regarding cognitive factors, beliefs and motivations, emotions and affect, and socio-cultural factors (Bernacki et al., 2021). Variability in learner characteristics informs the design and adaptation of approaches, resources, and support to promote learning outcomes for individual learners.
Educator knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for implementing PL are in constant interplay with learner variability and learning activities in unique contexts. Educator preparation can contribute to the extent to which educators acknowledge such variabilities and support individual learners. Preparation standards, such as InTASC standards, can shape expectations for PL implementation. To illustrate, InTASC highlights that “the teacher understands the range of types and multiple purposes of assessment and how to design, adapt, or select appropriate assessments to address specific learning goals and individual differences, and to minimize sources of bias.” This standard indicates expectations for educators to obtain knowledge of multiple assessments and learner variability as well as skills to adapt assessments to meet individual needs and goals. These expectations correspond to the three-level taxonomy of PL design. The potential influence of preparation standards on PL implementation through quality programming of EPPs involves a dynamic and complex system.
Teacher Education and Its Complexity
Teacher education has focused on adopting new practices as solutions or responses to rapid changes and unexpected disruptions to the education system (Hallman et al., 2022). As these strategies are ever-changing, a more sustained approach to teacher education is to foster an orientation among pre-service educators toward complexity to better prepare them for highly variable learning environments (Hallman et al., 2022; Kennedy, 2016). In line with addressing the complexity of individual learning, teacher preparation needs to enhance pre-service educators’ capacities for adaptivity and responsiveness to dynamic classroom contexts (Athanases et al., 2020). Links between teacher education, classroom teaching, and student learning, which are interdependent complex systems, are hardly straightforward (Martin & Dismuke, 2018). Researchers have argued to approach teacher preparation research through complexity theory (Cochran-Smith et al., 2014). This approach serves as an alternative for understanding teacher education as a system consisting of direct, causal, and linear relationships among various components (Davis & Sumara, 2006).
Cochran-Smith et al. (2014) indicated that a linear view of teacher education focuses on disconnected policies, programs, pathways, and stakeholders in different roles rather than interrelationships among these elements. In contrast, approaching teacher education through complexity theory highlights simultaneity and interdependencies among internal and external influences on developing teaching capacities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Ell et al., 2017). According to complexity theory, teacher knowledge, skills, and attitudes are interwoven to constitute effective practices in an unpredictable and complex way (Martin & Dismuke, 2018).
Research showed that teacher preparation pedagogies and curricula embracing the complexity of learning to teach would challenge pre-service educators short term but might also help them develop flexible adaptations long term (Parsons et al., 2017). The complexity approach has proven to be effective in supporting pre-service educators to attend to individual learners’ assets and needs, explore data patterns, and adapt instruction (Athanases et al., 2020). This approach highlights embedding inquiry practices and responsiveness to diverse learning needs into EPPs to assist pre-service educators in thinking more strategically about how their teaching could impact student learning (Kennedy, 2016; Sinnema et al., 2017).
Approaching Preparation Standards Through a Complexity Lens
Alongside acknowledging PL implementation and teacher education as complex undertakings, it is imperative to approach professional standards that guide preparation and course design through a complexity lens. Sinnema et al. (2017) argued that standards should promote the integration of formal knowledge and theories and practice, application, and performance in a way that attends to interactions among these domains to address the dualism of theory and practice prevalent in many existing standards. Consistent with complexity theory, this integrative approach to standards acknowledges the importance of embedding inquiry into practices to address uniqueness, complexities, and challenges that frame teaching as an active and situated undertaking (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Sinnema et al., 2017). This aligns with the need to prepare pre-service educators for responding and adapting to idiosyncrasies of a given situation (Helsing, 2007).
When applying the integrative, complex approach proposed by Sinnema et al. (2017) to understand standards oriented toward PL implementation, it provides a holistic understanding of interconnected teaching domains necessary to promote educator adaptivity and responsiveness to individual learners’ needs. To implement PL, educators need to demonstrate a wide range of education’s body of knowledge, such as content, pedagogies, curricula, learner characteristics, educational contexts, and values. To enable knowledge demonstration, educators use cultural, intellectual, critical thinking, relational, and assessment competencies to promote inquiry-oriented practices. When educators inquire into their practices, they demonstrate dispositions, such as open-mindedness, discerning alternative possibilities, and agency. At the macro level, ethical principles, commitment to individual learners, families, and the professions, as well as commitment to social justice are integral to guiding educators’ decision-making practices about individual learners. Explicit integration of these domains in standards or understanding standards from an integrative perspective provides insights into the complexity of preparing educators for PL implementation.
Guided by complexity theory, we acknowledge standards, teacher preparation, and PL implementation as dynamic systems within themselves (see Figure 1). Each system consists of internal, interdependent components, such as the three core considerations for PL implementation, different teaching domains outlined in standards, and various factors related to teacher preparation (e.g., policy, EPP programming, and classroom teaching). These systems constitute external factors that interinfluence each other in a nonlinear way in the complex system of preparing educators for PL implementation (as illustrated by spiral arrows). Among multiple nonlinear directions, for example, one clockwise direction indicates that standards provide guidance on EPPs, which in turn would impact teacher preparedness for PL implementation. Further, separate systems (e.g., preparation standards and PL implementation) could overlap and co-evolve as interconnected external influences on related systems (e.g., teacher preparation). For example, prescribed expectations for educators in EPP standards and specific professional practices for PL implementation may align and function together to provide guidance on teacher preparation; however, they may disconnect from each other and cause dissonance among these systems. Thus, identifying alignment and disconnections among external factors could provide insights into connectedness and gaps in major structures of the complex system.
Interconnections Among Preparation Standards, Teacher Preparation, and PL Implementation.
Method
This study utilized an alignment methodology to examine educator preparation standards for intended teacher competencies oriented toward PL implementation. Studies applying alignment methodology explore the degree to which educational policies, standards, curriculum, and assessment are congruent with each other, thus providing data for educational stakeholders to move toward shared goals and achieve desired outcomes (DeLuca & Bellara, 2013; Webb, 2007). We applied alignment methodology because it allowed us to identify the congruence between preparation standards and teacher competencies for implementing PL as two external influences within a complex, dynamic system (illustrated in Figure 1). Instead of focusing on internal influences within each system, we aimed to identify connections, or lack thereof, between the two interdependent factors.
Specifically, we adapted Webb’s (2007) methodology, which has been widely used to investigate alignment between assessments and standards in four criteria, including categorical concurrence, depth of knowledge, range of knowledge, and balance of representation. The categorical concurrence criterion measures the extent to which the same or consistent content appears in the aligned documents (e.g., standards, assessment items); the other criteria focus on evaluating depth, breadth, and distribution of knowledge in aligned standards and assessments (Webb, 2007). We only used categorical concurrence as the alignment indicator because this study focused on comparing the similarity of expectations for educators’ PL implementation as described by preparation standards and shared understandings from research, policy, and practices. Examining the alignment of standards with assessments of knowledge and practices that lead to PL implementation outcomes is out of the scope of this study. The categorical occurrence criterion met the minimal requirement for alignment research (Martone & Sireci, 2009) and allowed us to provide a general alignment indicator considering that PL is broadly defined, and research on its implementation is still emerging. Approaching our inquiry through the lens of complexity theory, this analysis provides data points used to analyze expectations for teaching practices that have the potential to lead to PL implementation among standards across disciplines and learner populations.
Data Source
Data used for this study were collected from a large-scale education professional standards database. This database includes more than 5,000 professional standards in the U.S. education system, including SPA standards, accreditation standards, high-leverage practices for in-service general and special teachers, and teaching evaluation standards (Carter et al., 2023). As this study focused on educator preparation, we only included InTASC and SPA standards from the database. Eighteen SPAs were included given that they are actively utilized for accreditation by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which is a U.S. organization accrediting EPPs.
This inclusion criterion yielded 19 sets of standards (see Supplemental Table for more information about SPAs and links to standard documents), including one set of standards that applies to all subject areas and grade levels (i.e., InTASC), nine sets of discipline-specific standards (i.e., Math, Science, English, Language, Arts, Social Studies, Health Education, Physical Education, Foreign Language), four sets of standards for teaching specific learner populations (i.e., early childhood, special education, gifted education, and middle-level student), and five sets of standards for various education professionals (i.e., district administrators, school administrators, counselors, librarians, and psychologists). Standards within each set are accompanied by an explanation and further delineated through components, indicators, principles, or elements for standard implementation. We used components to refer to those terms hereafter to ensure consistency in nomenclature. For example, InTASC contains 174 specific standard components within ten core standards.
Data Analysis
To answer RQ1, two subject matter experts (SMEs) from the research team analyzed the categorical concurrence between educator preparation standards and core components related to PL implementation. To first extract relevant standards from the data pool for analysis, the two SMEs evaluated each included a standard component for the presence of keywords, terms, and phrases reflecting PL. The SMEs conducted extensive research on PL and professional standards analyses. We followed previous alignment studies on educator preparation standards that used two SMEs to code data (e.g., DeLuca & Bellara, 2013) and guidance on achieving an interrater agreement of greater than 90% to indicate strong trustworthiness for document-based analyses (Bowen, 2009).
We created a list of keywords and terms to extract standards guided by the taxonomy of PL critical components and design features proposed by Bernacki et al. (2021; see Table 1). To ensure comprehensiveness, we cross-analyzed and synthesized keywords in PL definitions from frequently cited research papers, policy documents, and educational organization reports. These keywords and terms fell under three broad categories: (a) learner characteristics (e.g., “needs,” “interest,” “prior knowledge”); (b) flexible designs of instruction and learning environments (e.g., “tailor,” “adapt,” “flexibility,” “student choice,” “self-initiated”) adapted to learner characteristics; and (c) targeted learning outcomes (e.g., “mastery,” “highest standards”) promoted by PL designs and efforts. Based on these keywords/terms, we created coding criteria for categorical concurrence alignment to determine the presence of concepts related to PL in standard components (see Table 1). Further, we conducted iterative, open-coding of included standards to allow themes within each PL-related category to emerge (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The two SMEs analyzed each standard component line by line and coded them in as many categories as possible. Therefore, many standard components were coded across multiple categories.
Keywords and Coding Criteria for Categorical Occurrence Alignment.
To answer RQ2, we adopted a multiple-step deductive approach. First, we coded each PL-related standard component identified from the previous step for its domain. Although differing in language, preparation standards are developed around different domains to reflect the complexity of teaching practices. Various terms used to describe these domains are conceptually similar, which often refer to (a) Knowledge: essential knowledge or understanding, (b) Practice: practices, skills, competencies, or performance, (c) Disposition: values, dispositions, or commitments to and responsibilities for students, profession, and society (Sinnema et al., 2017). For example, InTASC standards delineate three domains (e.g., Essential Knowledge, Performance, and Critical Disposition) into which each component is categorized. Other sets of standards did not explicitly categorize components into different domains. To compare patterns across standards, we utilized generic terms (i.e., knowledge, competency, disposition) to code each standard component that was not explicitly categorized into these domains. In total, 193 components were coded by the same two coders independently. An interrater agreement of 93.3% was achieved, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
Further, we created a matrix onto which data were mapped to conjointly demonstrate alignment results related to categorical concurrence between overall domains of teaching standards and PL implementation. Adapting a proportion-based analysis technique used in DeLuca and Bellara (2013), we calculated the proportion of the number of standard components containing a PL-related theme (e.g., learner characteristics) nested within a given domain (e.g., Knowledge) in relation to the overall number of standard components within each set of standards. This matrix showed the weighted frequency of each domain code, enabling the identification of patterns of themes emerging within and across sets of standards.
Results
Of 126 educator preparation standards and 654 standard components, 72 standards and 193 components were included and coded for alignment to PL conceptualization and implementation. However, only one standard component for school counselor preparation explicitly used the phrase “personalized instruction” (i.e., ASCA Standard 4.4). In the following sections, we present findings emerging in response to research questions. First, categorical concurrence alignment analysis found that while differing in depth and width of description, all included sets of standards contained components reflecting expectations for educators to tailor instruction and support to individual learners’ needs. Second, noticeable patterns and variations existed among sets of standards regarding how they focus on different domains pertinent to preparing educators for the complexity of PL implementation.
PL-Related Themes Emerging From Standards
Table 2 presents the results of categorical concurrence alignment between PL-related themes and standard components. In total, 29.51% of standard components across all included sets of standards contained phrases that reflect PL conceptualization or implementation. While the number of included components varied across standards, SHAPE Health Education and NELP (both Building and District Level) had the largest (58.33%) and smallest percentage (4.00%) of standard components oriented toward PL, respectively. Most standard components focused on describing flexible instructional designs (83.42%) and learner characteristics (67.87%). Learning outcomes had a lower representation (10.36%) in standard components reflecting PL.
Standard Organizations and Related Categorical Concurrence Themes in Standards.
Note. N = number of standard components; LC = learner characteristics; DIL = design of instruction or learning environments; TLO = targeted learning outcomes.
Flexible Instructional Designs
Analysis of references to flexible designs of instruction and learning environments in standards revealed four major themes centered around expectations for educators to (a) Design, (b) Adapt, (c) Assess, and (d) Access instructional resources to meet learner needs. Table 3 summarizes categorization results and specific instances in PL-related standards.
Categories of References to Design of Instruction and Learning Environments in Standards.
Note. N = number of standard components with the SPA; SPAs = Specialized Professional Associations; ACTFL = American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language; ALA/AASL = American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians; AMLE = Association for Middle Level Education; ASCA = American School Counselor Association; CEC = Council for Exceptional Children; EI/ECSE = Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators; NAGC = National Association for Gifted Education; NASP = National Association of School Psychologists; NCSS = National Council for the Social Studies; NCTE = National Council of Teachers of English; NCTM-M = National Council of Teachers of Mathematics-Middle; NCTMS = National Council of Teachers of Mathematics-Secondary; NELP-B = National Educational Leadership Preparation-Building; NELP-D = National Educational Leadership Preparation-District; SHAPE-H = Society of Health and Physical Educators-Health; SHAPE-PE = Society of Health and Physical Educators-Physical Education; SOPHE = Society for Public Health Education; TESOL = Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
The first theme reflected the imperative for educators across disciplines to design instruction, strategies, interventions, learning experiences, strengths-based approaches to instruction, assessment, or counseling, learner-centered environments, or school-level systems that reflect an orientation toward personalization. For example, TESOL highlighted the development of “individualized instructional and assessment practices”; NCTE stressed using educator knowledge of learner identities to foster relevant, inclusive, and antiracist/antibias instruction to engage all learners in ELA. Several standard components highlighted the importance of creating culturally and linguistically appropriate/responsive instructional practices, mental, behavioral, and health services for diverse learners.
In line with the emphasis on student ownership of learning with PL environments, references to engaging learners in self-directed, self-regulated, and independent learning were observed in 12 standard components. Data-driven design emerged as another focus for educators to consider and implement when designing instruction, programs, services, or interventions; specifically, such design processes leverage the use of data on learner characteristics. Technology to support instructional design centered on advocacy to acquire necessary resources and collaboration across educational stakeholders to support implementation. These technologies aimed to reduce virtual barriers to instruction and leverage technology to provide accessible instruction for all students. Instances of collaboration among stakeholders (e.g., families, colleagues, specialists) to design learning experiences and environments for all learners were also observed in standards. For example, one InTASC standard component suggested that “The teacher plans collaboratively with professionals who have specialized expertise (e.g., special educators, related service providers, language learning specialists, librarians, media specialists) to design and jointly deliver as appropriate effective learning experiences to meet unique learning needs.”
The second theme pointed to instructional design through adaptation, differentiation, and accommodation/modification to meet student needs. Aligned to PL implementation, many standard components articulated educator knowledge and practices to adapt instruction, lessons, strategies, or communication in response to student needs and changing circumstances. As an instructional model, differentiated instruction that supports the needs of individual students or groups of students was referenced in seven standard components. The same number of standard components (n = 7) used the terms “accommodation” or “modification.” Accommodations and modifications are traditionally associated with special education services. These include testing accommodations that are defined in student IEPs, or modifications of student curriculum that ensure that students have access to instruction based on their present academic levels.
There was a large representation of assessment across PL-related standards, with most of them using general terms describing assessment practices, such as analyzing, assessing, evaluating, or interpreting student data, that guide instruction planning and implementation. Consistent and overlapping with findings on designing instruction, there was alignment between PL implementation and standards that highlight modifying, adapting, differentiating, or individualizing assessments to address learner variability through practices, such as using multiple methods, various types of data, and providing accommodations in testing. Similarly, involving students in self-assessment was evident in standards incorporating components for educators to foster self-directed learning and ownership of learning.
The last theme regarding educator access to resources was identified from a small number of standard components. This theme stands alone given that emphasis was placed on supports, resources, or assistance at school, district, and/or community levels needed for educators to support diverse learners. As part of support, participating in professional learning was referenced in ALA/AASL and SHAPE-Health Education standards.
A Wide Range of Learner Characteristics
Our analysis revealed that preparation standards used various terms to describe learner characteristics. During the open coding process, three subcategories emerged, which were labeled as overarching/generic, context-, and performance/skill-related characteristics. Most standards focused on one category of learner characteristics referents. Ninety-five of 193 standard components (49.22%) outlined expectations for educators to attend to learner characteristics in its broadest and generic sense, such as individual differences, strengths, interests, experiences, diverse learning needs, identified learning and developmental needs, interests, unique needs of all children (and families), learner responses and ideas, learning demands, and mental health trajectories.
A variety of context-related terms were used across standard components (n = 59; 30.57%) to highlight variations in contextual factors that may influence educational experiences, such as cultural and linguistic diversity, family backgrounds, ethnicity, individual identities, language, gender, and disabilities. Standards for teaching particular learner populations used terms specific to that group of learners, such as young adolescents (i.e., AMLE), English Language Learner (i.e., TESOL), exceptionalities (i.e., CEC), and individuals with gifts and talents (i.e., NAGC). Some standards incorporated more context-related characteristics than others to indicate a large learner variability. For example, NAGC indicated the importance of understanding the impacts of language, culture, economic status, family background, and/or area of disability on student learning. SHAPE-Health Education highlighted providing support for all learners regardless of race, ethnic origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, cognitive, or physical ability. School psychologists were expected to consider the unique needs of students living in nontraditional settings, including those who are homeless or displaced and those living in foster care, group homes, or transitional housing (i.e., NASP).
A smaller percentage of standard components (n = 30; 15.54%) included references to indicate varying levels of learner performance and skills using terms such as prior knowledge, each learner’s progress, evidence of individual students’ learning, performance, adaptive skills, talents, abilities, college/career readiness, motivation, and areas of development (e.g., cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, physical).
Targeted Learning Outcomes
A small percentage of standards (n = 20; 10.36%) incorporated components specific to achieving desired learning outcomes as part of educators’ effort to recognize individual learner characteristics and adapt instruction. Across these standards, most emphasized educator knowledge and skills of designing learning experiences to support each learner in achieving optimal learning, behavioral, college/career readiness, mental, and/or social-emotional goals (including individualized goals) and outcomes. Moreover, two InTASC and one CEC standard components focused on enhancing educator dispositions toward advocating for improved outcomes for students with exceptionalities and their families, believing all learners can reach their full potential, and committed to working toward each learner’s mastery of content standards and skills.
Educator Preparation Domains Highlighted in PL-Oriented Standards
Most standard components (n = 143; 74.09%) were coded as outlining expectations for educator competencies to design instruction or learning environments that meet student needs. A smaller percentage of components (n = 48; 24.87%) addressed essential knowledge needed for PL implementation. By comparison, only 13.99% (n = 27) of components described educator dispositions oriented toward PL. Most standard components embodied only one of these teaching domains; however, 21 components were coded as both Knowledge and Competency, and four components were coded as both Competency and Disposition.
To explore how preparation standards addressed the need of developing educator capacities toward PL implementation, we constructed a matrix that mapped PL-oriented themes to three general teaching domains. Table 4 presents the matrix of frequencies expressed as a percentage for each teaching domain (i.e., Knowledge, Competency, and Disposition) outlined in standards aligned to each PL-oriented theme (i.e., Learner Characteristics, Design of Instruction or Learning Environments, Learning Outcomes). Thus, this 3 × 3 matrix demonstrates nine dimensions of alignment between standards and PL-oriented themes, such as Knowledge about Learner Characteristics, Competency of Adapting Instruction, and Disposition toward Promoting Learning Outcomes.
Educator Preparation Domains Oriented Toward PL Implementation.
Note. PL = personalized learning; LC = learner characteristics; DIL = design of instruction or learning environments; TLO = targeted learning outcomes; ACTFL = American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language; ALA/AASL = American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians; AMLE = Association for Middle-Level Education; ASCA = American School Counselor Association; CEC = Council for Exceptional Children; EI/ECSE = Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators; NAGC = National Association for Gifted Education; NASP = National Association of School Psychologists; NCSS = National Council for the Social Studies; NCTE = National Council of Teachers of English; SOPHE = Society for Public Health Education; TESOL = Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
The bold-faced values present the highest percentage of alignment between preparation standards and specific PL-related themes.
Based on the matrix, the frequencies of PL-related standard components nested within teaching domains varied greatly, ranging from 0.57% (i.e., InTASC standards about educator knowledge of supporting learning outcomes) to 53.33% (i.e., NCTE standards about educator competencies of designing flexible instruction). In comparing frequencies across the nine areas in the matrix, a wide alignment between teaching domains and PL was found in InTASC (n = 9), NASP (n = 8), and CEC (n = 7) standards. Most other sets of standards showed three to five areas of alignment. Only two areas of alignment were found in SHAPE-Physical Education standards.
Several patterns were identified in terms of alignment between standards and PL in each dimension of the 3 × 3 matrix. First, AMLE and NASP standards demonstrated a higher percentage of alignment in dimensions of knowledge about learner characteristics (23.53% AMLE), instructional design (23.53% AMLE), and learning outcomes (2.17% NASP) than other standards. Second, 41.67% of SHAPE-Health Education standards, 53.33% of NCTE standards, and 26.67% of NCTE standards focused on educator competency show alignment to PL implementation addressing learner characteristics, instructional design, and learning outcomes, respectively. Last, although with a low representation across standards, three sets of standards incorporated a higher percentage of components focused on educator disposition toward advocating for students with diverse learning needs (12.50% SHAPE-Health Education), adapting instruction (11.11% ALA/AASL), and promoting learning outcomes for individual learners (4.35% CEC).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this study serves as an initial effort to explore whether and how PL was positioned in educator preparation standards that outlined expectations of educator knowledge, skills, and dispositions across disciplines and for diverse learner populations. We identified and analyzed 193 InTASC and SPA standard components that align with PL conceptualization and implementation. Educator preparation and PL implementation are dynamic complex systems wherein factors at different levels interact to promote changes. The way pre-service educators are prepared should align with the urgent needs of supporting diverse learners in ever-changing learning environments.
Preparing Educators for PL
Findings from this study showed that while existing standards reflected expectations for educators to develop an understanding of learner variability, most references to learner characteristics in standards are broad. These findings are consistent with the literature review conducted by Rowan et al. (2021) which identified a large amount of research on teacher education highlighting the need for EPPs to include knowledge about diverse learners. Rowan et al. (2021) found an almost equal number of articles that stressed skills, practices, and pedagogies educators need to possess to apply knowledge about diversity and cater to diverse learners. Our findings revealed a more emphasis on preparing educators for skills of tailoring instruction in existing standards than knowledge about learner characteristics. Moreover, far less attention is given to educator dispositions toward supporting learner diversity and tailoring instruction. Previous research showed that pre-service educators’ positive dispositions toward diversity and inclusion are a prerequisite for developing effective inclusive instructional strategies (Lautenbach & Heyder, 2019). Thus, the gap identified in this study points to a critical future research direction to explore how to better support educators in fostering dispositions toward working with diverse learners, especially students from historically marginalized groups and their families. This gap also suggests that teacher educators should critically examine whether existing practices address the need of promoting educator professional practices and commitments to support diverse learners.
Another striking finding of this study is the paucity of standards relating to targeted learning outcomes in PL-oriented standards. This category of the analysis aligns with standards that addressed enhanced learning outcomes for individual learners such as satisfaction, motivation, performance, mastery, and achievement as desired results of PL. As noted previously, while InTASC standards addressed learning outcomes across all the domains of the analysis, only one SPA standard set addressed learner outcomes in the Knowledge domain (i.e., NASP), one in Disposition (i.e., CEC), and seven in Competency (e.g., ASCA, NCTM-Middle). The limited attention given to knowledge about various forms of learner diversity and lack of specificity in learner outcomes provides ample opportunities to influence the types and quality of EPPs for design and implementation of PL. As has been observed by other researchers, standards influence EPPs (Darling-Hammond, 2006), and a lack of focus on a particular area in educator preparation can lead to teachers entering the profession unprepared or underprepared in that area (Holland et al., 2014).
This study points to potentially fruitful areas for future research, including the identification of specific practice recommendations for PL focused on learner outcomes in discipline- and role-specific standards, how they differ for diverse learner populations, and why. Building upon these findings, we posit that there is a need for teacher educators to prepare pre-service educators for knowledge about varying forms and combinations of diversity (e.g., ethnicity, cultural diversity, disabilities) and their impact on educational access, experience, pathways, and outcomes for diverse learners. Given the lack of guidance in the current standards, future research into how PL vis-à-vis learner outcomes are currently addressed in EPPs and research-based practices would illuminate PL as an education innovation. Moreover, teacher educators are encouraged to address the gaps within and between EPP programming and research on PL practices regarding improving targeted outcomes for individual learners.
Complex Factors Impacting Educator Preparation for PL Implementation
From our analysis, it is apparent that PL-oriented standards are positioned to reflect a professional rather than technical nature of teaching practices. These practices are complex in nature with interrelations and interplays among educator knowledge, competencies, and dispositions regarding learner characteristics, flexible instructional designs, and enhanced learning outcomes for all learners. Complexity theory provides a framework for considering teaching as a complex process rather than a linear, technical skill. While the role of a technician is application of a known solution to a fixed set of problems, the role of a professional is application of reflection and judgment to predicaments within unique circumstances. The professional role of educators has been described as an adaptive expert who is able to solve problems, construct new knowledge, and solve new problems as opposed to a worker who engages in routine work (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).
According to complexity theory, educational organizations and the people they serve thrive not when they standardize practice, but rather when they adapt and innovate (Cochran-Smith et al., 2014). Personalization requires educators to adapt and innovate as each learner brings unique needs and characteristics that interact with subject area content and learning environments in dynamic ways. There should be a multitude of complex variables involved in preparing educators for supporting learner variability in PL environments. Currently, most standards only make general references to designing, adapting, and differentiating strategies, programs, or learning environments to meet diverse learning needs. Regardless, it is promising that a wide range of skills educators need to know and apply to support diversity was highlighted in standards across disciplines and for diverse learner populations. These skills include, but are not limited to, creating culturally and linguistically responsive instruction and assessments, providing developmentally appropriate mental, behavioral, and health services, supporting learner self-directed learning, using data to guide instructional decision-making, leveraging technology, modifying and individualizing assessments, and building collaboration among stakeholders.
Another promising finding from this study is that preparing pre-service educators to collaborate with varying stakeholders to successfully onboard PL initiatives is already stressed in many standards (e.g., EI/ECSE, InTASC, NASP). Although less prevalent in standards for preparing administrators, collaborations with school administration and district-level personnel are also needed to ensure that educators have access to system-level resources (e.g., technology, data systems, PD) necessary to implement PL. As EPPs work to prepare educators for PL, school leaders must build the capacity of schools to adapt and support PL environments.
To elaborate, technology as a type of resource was highlighted in standards for preparing administrators (NELP-B; NELP-D), librarians (ALA/AASL), ELA educators (NCTE), health educators (SHAPE-H), and all educators (InTASC). This aligns with previous PL research that highlighted the role of technology in offering new opportunities for educators to engage in collaborative partnerships (e.g., Dishon, 2017). Not only should these partnerships lead to better decisions on what technologies best serve student PL experiences across contexts, but collaborations with administrators and school specialists will support school- and district-wide PL initiatives. Ultimately, preparing pre-service educators to be effective advocates for resources to support classroom implementation and system-wide PL initiatives should be within the scope of any EPP.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are several limitations when interpreting findings from the study. First, we only included standards that are currently recognized by CAEP, which may have left other SPA standards unexamined for this study. Further, we applied relatively wide inclusion criteria to extract standard components given the broadness of PL conceptualization. This led to the inclusion of most standards without explicit usage of language such as “personalized” and “personalization.” For example, we included the standards developed by SPAs such as CEC, EI/ECSE, and NAGC that focus specifically on professional knowledge and skills required for individualizing learning for students with exceptionalities, talents, and/or gifts. At the same time, not all these SPA standard components were included due to our coding system specifically linked to the theoretically guided taxonomy of PL.
Despite the relatively generous inclusion standards applied during coding, there were 15 standard components that were challenging to conclusively include or exclude. After careful consideration, it was decided that these 15 standards would be excluded from analyses but would be highlighted here to demonstrate potential gaps in current PL understanding and future research. One example is EI/ECSE Standard 2 Component 2.3 “Candidates engage families in identifying their strengths, priorities, and concerns. . ..” Current definitions of PL (Zhang et al., 2020) emphasize the importance of individual student strengths and needs when developing personalized instruction. The potential role of family strengths or the family’s goals for a child, while potentially important in reinforcing PL outcomes, is not directly mentioned within PL definitions. This standard was, therefore, not included. Nevertheless, the family role in PL may be an important area for future consideration.
Another example is that NELP-B Standard 7 Component 7.2 highlighted the role of a collaborative school culture in promoting the well-being of each individual learner and adult in the school. Current PL definitions focus more on personalizing academic tasks and considering instruction than on the well-being of individual learners (Zhang et al., 2020); thus, this standard does not clearly fit into the definitions. However, there is a need to promote emotional, psychological, and physical well-being for all learners to truly access PL to engage in well-rounded educational experiences in school systems. While these examples reflect our broad inclusion criteria, they suggest a future research direction to refine definitions of PL. We note that PL is an emerging concept that has yet to reach a common definition among disciplines. Future research should investigate the ways in which disciplines define PL in practice. This research effort could bring a shared understanding of PL to all disciplines.
Second, we are aware that alignment of PL conceptualization to standards does not reflect the enactment of standards in EPPs, achievement of teacher candidates, or implementation of PL in K-12 classroom settings. From the perspective of complexity theory, we acknowledge that enacting these standards in EPPs involves complex interplays among varying factors. For example, as suggested by Figure 1 in the Introduction, these factors include internal elements within the EPP as a system (e.g., missions and visions for PL, course programming, responsibility and agency of teacher educators) and external influences (e.g., guiding policies regarding entry pathways and licensures, school–university relationships, practice-based learning opportunities for PL). In addition, we acknowledge a nonlinear process of transferring the effect of educator preparation to educator competencies for implementing PL in K-12 classrooms. This study provides a holistic perspective on complexities in preparing educators for PL implementation. That said, preparation standards provide guidelines for knowledge and skills pre-service educators must integrate into their practices to provide PL experiences for students. However, it is unclear how prepared novice teachers are to successfully apply these skills in their teaching. Future research should investigate the impact of the enactment of PL-related standards in specific EPPs and its potentially transferable effects on PL implementation in K-12 contexts.
The third limitation lies in our approach to delineating knowledge, competencies, and dispositions in standards to probe the complexity of teacher practices. As indicated, the complex nature of teaching implies that preparation standards should attend to knowledge, practices, and dispositions from an integrated, complex perspective. However, our current analysis cannot elaborate on the interrelatedness of those domains because most existing standard components are designed to reflect separate domains. This is not a critique of the design of existing standards; instead, the findings indicate the need for approaching and enacting standards to embrace the complex nature of teaching. This need can be shown through an explicit integration of all critical elements required for PL implementation in designing EPP curricula and assessments. We argue for future research to highlight the complexity of preparing professionals for PL implementation that involves multiple domains of effective teaching and concerted efforts from stakeholders.
Finally, our criterion to exclude sets of SPA standards that are not currently recognized by CAEP omitted the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards. The last set of ISTE standards that were recognized by CAEP did contain commonalities with skills that pre-service educators should master to provide meaningful PL experiences for students. While it is unclear if ISTE will put forth new SPA standards for EPP programs, it is clear that ISTE has a robust set of standards for in-service teachers. Future research should investigate if or how current SPA standards are preparing pre-service teachers to meet the expectations put forth by the ISTE standards.
Conclusion
Analyzing the presence and absence of PL-related standards helps capture expectations for pre-service educators’ preparedness for the complex PL implementation. As this study has shown, all included sets of standards incorporate certain percentages of components reflecting educator knowledge, competencies, and dispositions that gravitate toward PL implementation. These components demonstrate alignment to core elements of PL implementation (i.e., understand learner characteristics, tailor instruction to learner needs, and promote learning outcomes for individual learners). However, there is an uneven distribution of these components across PL elements, with most components oriented toward educator competencies, followed by knowledge and dispositions. From the perspective of complexity theory, the alignment found in this study provided an entry point for investigating interconnections between preparation standards and requirements for PL implementation. Future research can expand this study to explore in detail how specific internal and external factors would impact educator preparation and PL implementation, thus providing deeper insights into the interplay among these factors within a complex system.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jte-10.1177_00224871231201367 – Supplemental material for Are Pre-Service Educators Prepared to Implement Personalized Learning?: An Alignment Analysis of Educator Preparation Standards
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jte-10.1177_00224871231201367 for Are Pre-Service Educators Prepared to Implement Personalized Learning?: An Alignment Analysis of Educator Preparation Standards by Ling Zhang, Richard Allen Carter, Lisa Bloom, Daron W. Kennett, Nicholas J. Hoekstra, Samantha R. Goldman and James Rujimora in Journal of Teacher Education
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
This study did not involve human participants; thus an approval from the institutional ethics committee was not needed.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
