Components and Strategies for Personalized

Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic

Review

Ignasia Yuyun1,2(B) and Didi Suherdi1

1 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
ignasiayoen@gmail.com
2 Universitas Kristen Krida Wacana, Jakarta, Indonesia

Abstract. Disruptive technology has influenced education worldwide, particu-

larly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, the compelling rise and massive
changes in the e-learning industry have shifted education due to technological
advancement. Also, in Industrial Revolution 4.0 (digitalization), the virtual learn-
ing environment has mushroomed as everything goes digital through MOOCs,
gamification, mobile learning, social learning, wearable learning, and person-
alized learning. This way, teachers can personalize instruction based on each
student’s skills and learning style. This article systematically and critically syn-
thesizes empirical research from 40 studies published between 2011 and 2021
to depict the complex nexus of personalized learning in higher education. The
studies’ descriptive statistics reviewed included the research designs, participant
characteristics, and settings. Then, the findings of the qualitative content analy-
sis indicate the major themes. The inclusive criteria were grounded on (1) peer-
reviewed studies, (2) studies concerning personalized learning in higher education
contexts, and (3) studies published within the last ten years. Google Scholar, one
of the most popular web-based databases, was used to search for these articles. It
links to other web-based databases, such as Proquest, ERIC, and the websites of
journal publishers. In the corpus of forty studies, case studies in non-EFL depart-
ments were the most preferred study design for personalized learning research in
higher education. Besides, this systematic review revealed four prevalent findings
in defining personalized learning, underpinning theories, and identifying personal-
ized learning components and strategies. This study shows how early studies were
done and how they relate to future research and practice, especially the research
gap.

Keywords: Components · Higher education · Personalized learning ·

Strategies · Systematic review

1 Introduction

Disruptive technology has influenced education around the world. Notably, the rapid
change occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many educators have evolved their

© The Author(s) 2023

U. Widiati et al. (Eds.): ASIATEFL 2022, ASSEHR 749, pp. 271–290, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-054-1_23
272 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

teaching paradigm to be more technology-mediated since the traditional classroom sud-

denly shifted into an online classroom [1–3]. Therefore, teachers at any level of education
sharpen their knowledge and skills in embracing technology in the classroom. Teachers’
practice integrating technology synchronously and asynchronously to engage students
in online classroom interaction. In this regard, technology is not the primary inducement
for adaptability but rather a crucial enabling aspect (Gordon, 2014; Keamy et al., 2007,
cited in [4]). Technology and new pedagogies must be addressed to retain students longer
and personalize learning (Johnson et al., 2012, cited in [4]). Moreover, if this persists,
the demand for online education, such as e-learning platforms, will increase as the urge
for remote collaboration rises during this pandemic.
We have witnessed a compelling rise and massive changes in the e-learning industry
(Dondi & Delrio, 2006, cited in [5]). As everything goes digital, the virtual learning
environment mushrooms in Industrial Revolution 4.0 (digitalization). The future of e-
learning will include Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC), gamification, mobile
learning, social learning, wearable learning, and personalized learning. Remarkably, the
next Industrial Revolution 5.0 is personalization. This way, to meet the needs of their
students, today’s educators are embracing personalized methods of instruction to take
into account students’ varying specific skills and convenient modalities of cognition [5].
In a significant shift, the e-learning environment has evolved into the Smart Learn-
ing Environment (SLE), as indicated by Peng et al. [6]. SLE provides capabilities of
documenting the learning process, detecting learning scenarios, being cognizant envi-
ronment, and linking learning communities. This shift will be reinforced by a revamped
teaching style and personalized adaptive learning.
In 1998, John Dewey’s views supported the creation of personalized learning (PL)
theories, including experiential, learner-centered learning, social learning, curricular
extension, and change resilience [7]. According to Xie et al. [8], the phrases “person-
alized learning” and “adaptive learning” are different ideas but are sometimes used
interchangeably. Xie et al. [8] noted that they could meet different learning needs using
different strategies. Personalized learning occurs without identifying the learner’s indi-
vidual abilities to execute tasks. On the other hand, adaptive learning can be based on a
learner’s performance without individualized data. Also, individual qualities and pref-
erences may affect progress or performance. However, as outlined by Xie et al. [8],
“personalized learning” and “adaptive learning” share the ability to adjust to learners’
needs. If limited to technology-enhanced learning, “personalized learning” and “adaptive
learning” are confusing.
Personalized learning (PL) is a latent approach to meeting future educational
demands in the general context. This technique may offer new possibilities for boosting
learners’ learning capacities (Bentley & Miller, 2004, cited in [9]). However, Järvelä [9]
further articulates the factors that must be addressed to maintain the learner’s innate skills,
flexibility, initiative, focus, and enthusiasm. The processes include the development of
critical abilities, strengthening students’ cognitive performance and retention, fostering
learning, partnership in understanding, establishing innovative assessment instruments,
and technology’s usability as a personal cognitive and social device [9].
Personalized learning adapts to each student’s passion, attributes, and needs, follow-
ing Patrick, Kennedy, and Powell (2013, cited in [10]). In sum, it promotes adaptability
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 273

to enhance mastery and lets learners control how, what, when, and where they learn.
Groff (2017, in [11]) considers personalized learning to be an umbrella phrase that
encompasses other educational ideas, such as learning analytics, differentiated learning,
and adaptive learning. Individualization, student-centeredness, and a dynamic learning
environment are closely allied with these educational tenets. A distinguishing charac-
teristic of customized learning is its emphasis on student autonomy and choice. This
worldview ultimately transforms the higher education system, as observed by Ryan and
Tilbury (2013, referenced in [4]), who note that pedagogical notions modify teaching
and learning and produce a more flexible, technologically advanced higher education
system.
This systematic review aims to understand how personalized learning components
and strategies are applied in online higher education by analyzing empirical investiga-
tions done within the recent decade. Specifically, this review investigates personalized
learning components and strategies in online higher education environments. Moreover,
the systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses standards.

2 Literature Review

2.1 What is Personalized Learning?

Many facets of student-centered instruction can be alluded to as personalized learning.

According to Stephens [12], some researchers and institutions propose some definitions.
The five main parts of PL are flexible learning, redefining the role of the teacher, project-
based experiential learning, a student-driven learning path, and a mastery/competency-
based pace [13]. Personalized learning is closely related to the educational paradigm
shift regarding the student-centered approach. This new paradigm regards learner differ-
ences and controls technology highly. Educators and learners co-plan an individualized
educational experience [14]. In addition, personalized learning promotes the growth of
more profound learning abilities, such as logical reasoning, problem-solving, collab-
oration, effective communication, and academic attitudes [15]. Personalized Learning
is a strategy in which students increasingly participate in meaningful, authentic, and
decided tasks to exhibit desired outcomes [16]. In other words, student agency is highly
promoted in PL.
Moreover, the instruction strategy is defined in PL. PL focuses on students’ needs,
learning plans, potential, flexibility, and parent involvement in student learning [17]. To
encourage mastery of skills and content and to offer flexibility and assistance, PL should
adapt technology in learning instruction to students’ learning requirements, strengths,
and interests [18, 19].
Teacher-student interaction plays a pivotal role in PL. In a PL environment, students
actively contribute to their learning process as they have a voice in establishing close, inti-
mate relationships with their peers, instructors, and other adults. In this case, the teacher
guides the student’s journey [20]. In addition, PL incorporates parents, supports smaller
class sizes and one-on-one connections between teachers and students, considers diverse
274 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

learning styles and digital availability, and fosters student-driven engagement. There-
fore, students can improve the learning process, diverse learning environments, access
to technology, teacher and parent development programs, and curriculum selection.

2.2 Personalized Learning Components

Shemshack, Kinshuk, and Spector [21] portray personalized learning components which
thus comply with Peng et al.’s depiction [6].

2.2.1 Learning Styles

Tseng et al. [22] suggested merging two data sources on learning styles and activities,
such as learning effectiveness and concentration level. Moreover, learning accomplish-
ment may be leveraged as a determining factor to personalize student learning materials.
However, Hwang et al. [23] contended that learning styles are one of the most preva-
lent characteristics to consider when building adaptive learning systems, but few studies
have examined whether students can choose the most appropriate systems based on their
learning styles.

2.2.2 Cognitive Styles

Personalized learning strategies require learning characteristics such as personality and
cognitive types [24]. The relationship between learning profile and ability, academic
achievement, or classroom instruction and learning environment is noteworthy. However,
the more mature and competent students are, their interests and skills will likely shift.

2.2.3 Self-Reflection and Self-Regulated Learning

Self-reflection and self-regulation are crucial to the progressive development of learning,
which is a complex process. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is one of the essential research
fields in education over the past two decades, according to Panadero [25], who identified
the cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, motivational, and emotional/affective elements
of learning as well as the data available to researchers. A dynamic, personalized learning
model can give learners a more enjoyable and exciting learning experience while con-
sidering their goals and requirements. Researchers and academics have access to several
models and approaches for personalized learning. However, in the context of SRL, no
age or level of learner preparation is considered to ensure that the learner is ready to
self-regulate their learning.

2.2.4 Flexible Pacing

Most educators and academics postulate that personalized learning allows pupils to
study at their own pace. Sturgis and Patrick (2010, as described in [26]) reiterate that
well-designed technology systems enable personalized learning by tracking individual
progress and advocating personalized learning pathways.
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 275

2.2.5 Tools and Systems

Numerous instruments and techniques offer everyone an exceptional learning opportu-
nity. Smart Learning Environments (SLE) are necessary to facilitate personalized learn-
ing by aiding students in obtaining their learning objectives. In this way, SLE tools
can foster essential elements of personalized learning, including students’ awareness,
recommendations, self-reflection, assessment, feedback, and motivation [6, 27].

2.2.6 Smart Learning Environments

Chatti and Muslim [27] highlight that SLE must foster sensitivity, suggestion, self-
reflection, assessment, constructive criticism, and enthusiasm to facilitate personalized
learning. Hwang (2014, as referenced in [28]) proposed that an SLE may provide quick
and adaptive support to learners by examining their needs from several viewpoints in
real-time.

2.2.7 Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Another system that supports personalized learning experience is intelligent tutoring
systems (ITS), which employ computational algorithms or models to deliver immediate
feedback and learning instructions to learners without human teachers. ITS incorpo-
rates built-in expert systems to monitor a learner’s performance and personalize instruc-
tions based on adaptation to the learners’ learning style, current knowledge level, and
appropriate teaching strategies in e-learning systems [26].

2.2.8 Data Mining and Learning Analytics

Zhu, M. H. Yu, and P. Riezebos [30] pointed out that data mining (DM) and learning
analytics (LA) are two applications in education that keep making use of big data.
Big data is frequently described as massive in volume, swift in velocity, diverse in
variety, exhaustive in scope, attempting to capture entire populations, social in nature,
flexible, and versatile (Kitchin, 2014, cited in [31]. DM and LA support learning by
registering learning data to evaluate learning methods, predict expected performance, and
uncover faults. LA can be essential in analyzing data from diverse learning environments,
promoting personalized activities based on learners’ needs and goals, and supporting
learners optimally. Chatti and Muslim [27] also noted the increased interest in LA to
promote personalized learning. Siemens and Baker (2012, as cited in [28]) defined LA
as using students’ information and research models to separate data and social links and
guide learning. Zhang et al. (2018) supported the idea of LA and SLEs. Meanwhile, DM
is used to create techniques to investigate the extraordinary information in instructive
settings and to see better understudies and the settings in which they learn [32].

2.2.9 Wearable Devices

Borthwick et al. (2015, as quoted in [8]) brought up that with information technologies
for learning applications implemented on mobile and wearable devices, differentiation of
instruction and student involvement will evolve into a new trend. In addition, each of these
276 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

systems asserts that learning is a cyclical process comprised of various dynamic phases
that involve goal formulation, planning, activating goals, and executing performance
[25].

2.3 Personalized Learning Strategies

Regarding PL strategies, Keppell [33] proposed six personalized learning strategies:

digital citizenship, seamless learning, learner engagement, learning-oriented assessment,
lifelong and life-wide learning, and desire paths.

2.3.1 Digital Citizenship

Digital literacy is an integral component of personalized education. Students are expected
to improve their digital literacy since they play a crucial role in a digital society. Using
digital technologies effectively will be crucial for finding and keeping a job in the
future. Digital literacies will enable mobile and nomadic learners as they navigate varied
learning venues with ease.

2.3.2 Seamless Learning

Seamless learning refers to what was earlier regarded to be different, separate compo-
nents [34]. For example, in-class and out-of-class activities, academic and non-academic
circumstances, curricular and co-curricular interactions, and on-campus and off-campus
experiences are now one piece, tied together to appear continuous. These ideas build
seamless university learning environments: (1) revitalize institutions; (2) Set a common
goal for learning; (3) cultivate a common language; (4) boost cross-functional commu-
nication and collaboration; (5) envisage how student culture affects student learning; (6)
concentrate on structural reforms.
Also, seamless learning refers to bridging learning across settings, technologies, and
activities [35]. Maintaining continuity and fluidity between contexts or environments,
whether physical, virtual, or hybrid [35, 36].
In PL, students need to promote strategies for learning reflection, connecting
with peers, and awareness of the influence of new learning spaces on their learning
engagement.

2.3.3 Student Engagement

Following Coates [37], student engagement is characterized by active and collaborative
learning, strenuous academic activities, constructive dialogue with academic staff, the
development of educational experiences, and a sense of legitimacy and support from
university learning communities. Besides, aligning pedagogical, technical, and admin-
istrative issues is necessary to establish a captivating learning environment. As a mul-
tidimensional phenomenon, engagement measures intrinsic involvement, educational
outcomes, and learners’ involvement in learning. In addition, it investigates the impact
of university education quality on student learning and the relationships between students
and their universities [37]. Time, effort, and resources are crucial to student engagement,
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 277

as students devote themselves to activities to enhance their university education, such

as time spent on campus or studying and in-class and out-of-class learning experiences
(Krause, 2005, cited in [38]). Learners must be empowered and supported to make
involvement meaningful in this situation. Consideration must also be given to adopting
ways to aid students in actively engaging in their studies and coping with challenging
situations. Personalized learners will need to understand how a learning environment
promotes engagement. The evaluation must be tailored and contextualized to the stu-
dent’s learning path in next-generation learning environments. Thus, a learning-focused
assessment has the potential to help achieve this objective.

2.3.4 Learning-Oriented Assessment

Learning-oriented assessment is a potential approach used to emphasize the assessment
of learning approaches. Carless et al. [39] advocated for three fundamental elements of
learning-oriented assessment: assessment tasks, student involvement in the assessment
processes, and forward-looking feedback. The focus of assessment tasks is the develop-
ment of an assessment comprising the learning outcomes. Then, by integrating students
into the assessment process, students become aware of the evaluation’s characteristics
and components. We provide forward-looking feedback by delivering actionable feed-
back to the learner. Active learning assists students in understanding the significance
of assessment. In other words, through self-evaluation, reflection, and self-regulation,
active learners can assess the quality of their work.

2.3.5 Lifelong and Life-Wide Learning

Personalized learning necessitates a confident disposition and drive. A lifelong learner
embraces change and is intrinsically motivated to continue learning throughout their life-
time. Watson [40] states that lifelong and life-wide learning includes formal and infor-
mal learning as well as self-motivated learning. Moreover, life-wide learning empha-
sizes learning experiences across various areas, sites, and settings. Life-wide learning
acknowledges that a person’s life comprises numerous parallel and interconnected jour-
neys and experiences [41]. Notably, the core consists of the intrinsic motivation to
continue learning throughout one’s life. Personalized learners must also create learning
pathways that correspond to their life circumstances.

2.3.6 Desire Paths

There is a shortcut to achieving learning goals in the learning process usually taken
by learners. In PL, students are eager to adapt their learning experiences to their cir-
cumstances, needs, and career goals. Therefore, they must refine their learning journey
continuously by considering their desired paths at various stages of their learning journey
[42].

2.4 Personalized Learning in Higher Education

The rise and proliferation of the Internet and social media technologies boost educa-
tional change [43]. Consequently, learning in higher education has shifted to various
278 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

places and spaces we seamlessly navigate [42]. He explicates that future students will
be able to transition between spaces without difficulty because they will be able to adapt
to and utilize the affordances of the learning spaces with their mobile devices. The evo-
lution toward personalizing education has influenced the location and environment of
education. This way, students must be digital citizens with sophisticated literacies in
embracing ubiquitous learning spaces. Consequently, there is a growing need to educate
university instructors and students on leveraging the use of diverse learning environ-
ments. Moreover, addressing learning needs, preferences, and interests play a pivotal
role in personalized learning. This way, the instruction is tailored to those different
learners.
Higher education has recently witnessed a proliferation of personalized learning. The
implementation of personalized learning has improved students’ learning and retention
(Foss, Foss, Paynton, & Hahn, 2014, cited in [44]). When designing online courses
for higher education, they comply with the principle of personalized learning while
considering students’ basic needs, which affects their intrinsic motivation and learning.
Some universities and colleges have developed various models and platforms to promote
personalized learning. In this case, the role of technology is badly needed to enhance
personalized learning for different learners, such as the emergence of MOOCs, mobile
learning applications, and software. Markedly, PL in Higher Education seeks to promote
each student’s academic success by identifying his or her interests, needs, and aspirations
and then aiding the planning and implementation of personalized academic plans [45].

3 Methods
This systematic review undertook a literature review to answer a question by applying a
replicable search strategy. This study included or excluded studies according to explicit
criteria (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012, cited in [46]). This multi-phase study ana-
lyzes peer-reviewed research publications on personalized learning in higher education
throughout the past decade. Multiple searches and selections were conducted to identify
publications eligible for comprehensive analyses.

3.1 Source Databases

Since the rise of online publications and open access resources, a broad search for schol-
arly literature has been conducted electronically. Google Scholar was selected because
it links to other web-based databases, including ProQuest, ERIC, Springer, and journal
publisher websites.

3.2 Searches and Selections

Several searches were performed on the source database using various keywords and
search strategies, such as personalized/personalised, personalized/personalised learning,
personalized/personalised pedagogy, and personalized/personalised learning in EFL and
higher education. Then, focusing specifically on research examining personalized learn-
ing, the following inclusive criteria were applied: (1) peer-reviewed studies, (2) stud-
ies concerned with personalized learning in higher education contexts, and (3) studies
published within the last ten years.
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 279

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the papers comprising the review.

3.3 Selection Criteria and Results

To meet the predetermined goals of the research, a set of selection criteria was established
and used. Only English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting empirical,
theoretical, or conceptual, evidence-based studies were selected for further analysis.
The following were excluded: (a) non-English publications, (b) conference proceedings
or presentations, (c) reports of personal user experiences, (d) articles reporting no data
or without enough data, and (e) studies not related to higher education, educational
technology, learning, and instruction, technology integration.
In addition, the screening and selection process strictly adhere to the following cri-
teria: (1). Research must focus on personalized learning in higher education settings.
(2). Research must be empirical, evidence-based studies. Theoretical, conceptual, and
literature review papers were meticulously read to enhance foundational knowledge and
broaden empirical support for a more comprehensive grasp of personalized education.
Subjective views and anecdotes articles were disqualified. The researchers analyzed all
search results and agreed on whether each article should be included or excluded. After
careful screenings and preliminary analyses, 40 research articles were chosen for an in-
depth examination. The journals are various, such as Language Learning and Technol-
ogy, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, Teaching Education,
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, Journal of Online Learning Research, Educational Technology, and Soci-
ety, Education and Information Technologies, Journal of Personalized Learning, IEEE
280 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

Transactions on Learning Technologies, Journal of Computing in Higher Education,

Computers and Education, and many others (Fig. 1).

3.4 Analysis Methods

Content analysis has bridged the gap between quantitative and qualitative literature
review methods (e.g., [47]). Thus, inductive content analysis was conducted in this study.
The researchers analyzed each admissible article to determine the following: research
foci, theoretical frameworks, research designs, participants, and research contexts. Then,
key findings were identified to generate the emerged themes and patterns. In the final
step, all reviewed papers were coded for each theme.

4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 The Landscape of Personalized Learning in Higher Education Research

Publications

A total of 40 empirical and evidence-based research articles focused on personalized

learning in higher education within the last ten years were thoroughly reviewed, starting
from 2011 to 2021. As can be seen in Table 1, studies on personalized learning in higher
education were primarily conducted in 2020 and 2021 (18%). The second most conducted
research was in 2019 (13%). Most (35%) of the empirical studies were presented as case
studies. The second most prevalent type of personalized learning in higher education
was experimental studies (20%), followed by design-based research (15%) and quasi-
experimental (10%). The rest of the preferred types of research design on personalized
learning in higher education studies were a correlation study (5%), comparative study,
descriptive study, narrative study, action research, ethnography, and phenomenology
(3%). Most (67,5%) of the studies reviewed involved students as the participants of the
research, with a few studies focused on the teachers (20%) and the system (12,5%).
Studies on personalized learning in higher education dominantly took place in the non-
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context (67,5%) rather than in the EFL context
(32,5%).
The demography of reviewed studies depicts that personalized learning research has
increased recently in the last three years. It indicates that personalized learning in higher
education attracts stakeholders, such as teachers and institutions, to investigate in-depth
analysis, particularly in a specific context. Indeed, a case study was found prevalently in
the reviewed studies. Interestingly, the personalized learning research in the EFL context
was still limited as it was dominantly conducted in the non-EFL context.

4.2 Defining Personalized Learning

In attempting to define the concept of personalized learning, 60% of studies (n = 24)

were in this corpus. The other 40% of studies did not define personalized learning. In
constructing their definitions, the authors of these 24 studies consulted diverse sources.
The most popular definition of personalized learning within these studies focused on
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 281

learners’ needs, interests, and goals (e.g. [44, 45, 48–57]), the pace of learning [44,
49, 57–59], competencies [48], role [60], characteristics [50, 56], the promotion of self-
realization [61], aspirations [45], learning styles [53–55, 62, 63], knowledge background
and self-directed learning ability [53, 58], motivation [54, 56], self-initiated, self-directed
or self-prioritized [64, 65], and participation [66].
Overall, the definition of personalized learning in the reviewed studies has consis-
tently pinpointed the learners’ aspects seen from a diverse point of view. This student-
centered learning fosters individual learners’ learning capacities and conforms to per-
spectives made by Järvelä [9] and to some definitions cited in Stephens [12]. Signifi-
cantly, the majority of definitions focusing on learners’ interests, strengths, and needs
investigated in the reviewed studies are comparable with previous studies conducted by
Patrick, Kennedy, and Powell (2013, cited in [10]) to promote mastery of skills and con-
tent and provide flexibility and support [18, 19]. In addition, some definitions emphasize
competency-based education or learner autonomy, whereas others emphasize individu-
alized pacing or learning preferences consistent with Lokey-Vega and Stephens’ theories
[14].

4.3 Theoretical Underpinnings

In supporting personalized learning, 63% (n = 25) of studies employed a theoretical

model in their research. Half of them (n = 13) used learning theories to support the
concept of personalized learning in their studies. Theories on learning are related to
self-determination theory [58], self-regulated learning [67], scaffolding [68], memory
learning strategies, engagement model [61], Community of Inquiry [58], learning styles
[62], achievement goal theory [56], and proximal zone development (ZPD) [58].
Moreover, another half (n = 12) of the studies used other theories of e-learning, or
virtual environment, as they investigated the e-learning platforms or developed person-
alized learning models. Theories of e-learning include adaptive learning [69]; learner
model [70]; ICSDR (Identity, Conceptualize and Connect, Storyboard, Develop, Review,
Reflect, Revise) model [49]; virtual learning environment [60, 71]; item response theory
(IRT) [57, 72]; fuzzy logic theory [72]; learning analytics [58]; and technology-enhanced
personalized learning [73].
The balance portion of underpinning theories used in the reviewed studies demon-
strates the learning theories juxtaposed with other e-learning or virtual environment
theories to complement each other.
282 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

4.4 Personalized Learning Components

The personalized learning components occurred in the reviewed studies. However, all
components were not available in the respective study. They were scattered in different
studies. The most significant personalized learning components in the reviewed studies
were tools and systems, documented in 25 studies (63%). Then, the learning styles
component was reported in 23 studies (53%). In comparison, other components were
distributed over the reviewed studies, such as self-reflection or self-regulated learning (n
= 13, 33%), cognitive styles (n = 12, 30%), flexible pacing (n = 6, 15%), data mining
and learning analytics (n = 8, 20%), wearable devices (n = 7, 18%), and smart learning
environment (n = 6, 15%), and intelligent tutoring systems (n = 4, 10%).
The employment of nine components of personalized learning varied in each study,
as seen in Table 2. The most significant number of components discussed in reviewed
studies was two components. The studies conducted by Chaichumpa et al. [60]; Liman-
Kaban [58]; Troussas et al. [59]; Hariyanto et al. [52]; Salinas and De-Benito [74]; Tsai
et al. [31]; Sarwar et al. [75]; Hallman, [51]; Mudrák [54]; Turvey and Hayler [76];
Rahmani [64]; Gómez [50]; and Godwin-Jones [77], for instance, only investigated
two of nine personalized learning components. Meanwhile, seven of nine components
were revealed in one study by Nandigam et al. [73], and no study covered eight or
nine components of personalized learning. This result indicates that all components of
personalized learning proposed by Shemshack, Kinshuk, and Spector [21] and Peng
et al. [6] have not yet been investigated in one study. This gap is beneficial for future
studies investigating personalized learning components.

4.5 Personalized Learning Strategies

Most studies in this corpus (n = 18, 45%) elaborated on student engagement as a per-
sonalized learning strategy. Then, the learning-oriented assessment was employed in
twelve studies (30%). Some studies (n = 5, 13%) revealed that digital citizenship is an
essential strategy. Meanwhile, seamless learning and desire paths showed in an equal
number of studies (n = 4, 10%, respectively)—finally, only one study (3%) investigated
lifelong and life-wide learning as a personalized learning strategy, which was conducted
by Hughes [78].
Various emergence was found in all reviewed studies, as seen in Table 3. The study’s
most prevalent (n = 14, 35%) investigated one personalized learning strategy. Inter-
estingly, twelve studies (30%) did not reveal any strategies for personalized learning,
and no study investigated five or six personalized learning strategies. The other studies
examined two personalized learning strategies (n = 8, 20%), three personalized learning
strategies (n = 5, 13%), and four personalized learning strategies (n = 1, 3%).
The result shown in Table 3 demonstrates that the personalized learning strategies
proposed by Keppell [37] have not yet been examined entirely in the reviewed studies.
The limited personalized learning strategies explored in the reviewed studies demonstrate
that in-depth analysis has not yet been investigated in higher education.
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 283

Table 1. A summary of research studies in Personalized Learning in Higher Education

Characteristics N %
Publication Year
2011 2 5%
2012 2 5%
2013 3 8%
2014 2 5%
2015 4 10%
2016 1 3%
2017 3 8%
2018 4 10%
2019 5 13%
2020 7 18%
2021 7 18%
Research Design
Qualitative
Case Study 14 35%
Comparative 1 3%
Descriptive 1 3%
Narrative 1 3%
Action Research 1 3%
Design-based 6 15%
Ethnography 1 3%
Phenomenology 1 3%
Quantitative
Experiment
Experimental 8 20%
Correlation 2 5%
Quasi-Experimental 4 10%
Participants
Students 27 67,5%
Teachers 8 20,0%
System 5 12,5%
Context
EFL 13 32,5%
Non-EFL 27 67,5%
284 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

Table 2. The frequency of personalized learning components in reviewed studies (Studies n =

40)

PL Components Studies Percentage (%)

1 7 18
2 13 33
3 10 25
4 3 8
5 6 15
6 0 0
7 1 3
8 0 0
9 0 0

Table 3. The frequency of personalized learning strategies in reviewed studies (Studies n = 40)

PL Strategies Studies Percentage (%)

none 12 30
1 14 35
2 8 20
3 5 13
4 1 3
5 6 0
6 0 0

5 Limitations

This systematic review attempted to abide by the methodology as strictly as possible.

However, several obstacles were also encountered, resulting in the study’s limitations.
First, some searched articles in web-based databases and journal publisher websites
cannot be accessible after applying the selection criteria. Then, it took longer to find
more references. Second, the sampling strategy likely accounts for the limited number
of studies (n = 40) due to the study’s time constraints. It also applied to the number of
themes investigated in the reviewed study. In conclusion, the results of this systematic
review provide a preliminary view of the overall body of research identified during the
search, and additional research is ongoing to provide a deeper understanding of additional
facets of personalized learning.
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 285

6 Recommendations

In light of the study’s limitations, this study identifies several areas that warrant further
investigation. Although this study utilized the framework proposed by previous research
to understand prior learning in higher education as a multifaceted construct with greater
depth and breadth, it did so to comprehend previous learning as a complex phenomenon
better. It implies that it is not sufficient to focus solely on measurable indicators of
personalized learning but that a more complex effort must be made to uncover and
investigate these indicators. Therefore, additional research is encouraged into other facets
of personalized learning in higher education, especially in the context of EFL, which is
still limited.
This analysis demonstrates the existence of research gaps concerning specific compo-
nents and personalized learning strategies, which are not entirely applied in all reviewed
studies. This finding encourages educators within higher education institutions to design
or conduct the practice of personalized learning by applying all components and strate-
gies. Notably, revealing new components and strategies will contribute more to the
field.

Acknowledgments. The study was presented at a joint conference of the 20th AsiaTEFL,
68th TEFLIN, and 5th iNELTAL Hybrid International Conference 2022 Indonesia, organized
and hosted by Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia, on August 5–7, 2022. We appreciate the
comments, which we have integrated into this article.

Authors’ Contributions. In addition to performing the systematic review search and data extrac-
tion, IY reviewed the literature on personalized learning, drafted the review’s method, findings,
discussion, and conclusion sections, and created all graphs and tables. The article was revised and
proofread by DS. The final manuscript has been read and approved by all writers.

References
1. J. Willett, C. Brown, and L. A. Danzy-Bussell, “An exploratory study: Faculty perceptions
of online learning in undergraduate sport management programs,” J. Hosp. Leis. Sports Tour.
Educ., vol. 25, no. June, p. 100206, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100206.
2. M. Treve, “What COVID-19 has introduced into education: challenges Facing Higher Edu-
cation Institutions (HEIs),” High. Educ. Pedagog., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 212–227, 2021, https://
doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2021.1951616.
3. Y. Akyuz, “The Importance and Comprehensive Analysis of Distance Learning in the
COVID-19 Pandemic,” Eur. Mod. Stud. J., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 243–263, 2021, [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357776350_The_Importance_and_Compre
hensive_Analysis_of_Distance_Learning_in_the_COVID-19_Pandemic#fullTextFileCon
tent.
4. T. Wanner and E. Palmer, “Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions
about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course,” Comput. Educ., vol.
88, pp. 354–369, Oct. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008.
286 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

5. L. Uden, I. T. Wangsa, and E. Damiani, “The future of E-learning: E-learning ecosys-

tem,” in Proceedings of the 2007 Inaugural IEEE-IES Digital EcoSystems and Technologies
Conference, DEST 2007, 2007, pp. 113–117, https://doi.org/10.1109/DEST.2007.371955.
6. H. Peng, S. Ma, and J. M. Spector, Personalized Adaptive Learning: An Emerging Pedagogical
Approach Enabled by a Smart Learning Environment. Springer Singapore, 2019.
7. A. Shemshack and J. M. Spector, “A systematic literature review of personalized learning
terms,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-001
40-9.
8. H. Xie, H. C. Chu, G. J. Hwang, and C. C. Wang, “Trends and development in technology-
enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from
2007 to 2017,” Comput. Educ., vol. 140, Oct. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.
103599.
9. S. Järvelä, “Personalised Learning? New Insights into Fostering Learning Capacity,” Pers.
Educ. – Isbn-92-64-03659-8 © Oecd 2006, 2006, [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/
site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/themes/demand/41176687.pdf.
10. J. D. Basham, T. E. Hall, R. A. Carter, and W. M. Stahl, “An Operationalized Understanding
of Personalized Learning,” J. Spec. Educ. Technol., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 126–136, Sep. 2016,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416660835.
11. K. C. Li and B. T. M. Wong, “Features and trends of personalized learning: a review of journal
publications from 2001 to 2018,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 182–195, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1811735.
12. S. Stephens, “Teacher Perceptions of Personalized Teaching & Learning in an Instructional
Technology Graduate Course: A Phenomenographical Case Study,” 2020.
13. Hanover research, Best Practices in Personalized Learning Environments (Grades 4–9), no.
October. Hanover Research, 2012.
14. A. Lokey-Vega and S. Stephens, “A Batch of One: A Conceptual Framework for the
Personalized Learning Movement,” J. Online Learn. Res., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 311–330, 2019.
15. Future Ready Schools, A guidebook for success: strategies for implementing personalized
learning in rural schools, no. April. Alliance for Excellent Education, 2017.
16. A. Zmuda, G. Curtis, and D. Ullman, Learning personalized: The evolution of the
contemporary classroom. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 2015.
17. “Experience Personalized Learning Distinguishing Features of Our Model,” 2022. https://the
aplus.org/personalized-learning/.
18. A. Bingham and O. O. Dimandja, “Staying on Track: Examining Teachers’ Experiences in a
Personalized Learning Model.,” J. Ethnogr. Qual. Res., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 75–96, 2017.
19. S. Patrick, K. Kennedy, and A. Powell, “Mean What You Say: Defining and Integrating Person-
alized, Blended and Competency Education Mean What You Say: Defining and Integrating
Personalized, Blended and Competency Education President and Chief Executive Officer,
iNACOL,” New York, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561301.
pdf.
20. B. Bray and K. McClaskey, “Personalization vs . Differentiation vs . Individualization Report
( PDI ) v3,” Amherst, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://barbarabray.net/download/pdi-report-
version-3/.
21. A. Shemshack, Kinshuk, and J. M. Spector, “A comprehensive analysis of personalized learn-
ing components,” J. Comput. Educ., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 485–503, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40692-021-00188-7.
22. J. C. R. Tseng, H. C. Chu, G. J. Hwang, and C. C. Tsai, “Development of an adaptive learning
system with two sources of personalization information,” Comput. Educ., vol. 51, no. 2,
pp. 776–786, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.002.
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 287

23. G. J. Hwang, H. Y. Sung, C. M. Hung, and I. Huang, “A learning style perspective to

investigate the necessity of developing adaptive learning systems,” Educ. Technol. Soc.,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 188–197, 2013, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/public
ation/279711154_A_Learning_Style_Perspective_to_Investigate_the_Necessity_of_Develo
ping_Adaptive_Learning_Systems.
24. E. Triantafillou, A. Pomportsis, and S. Demetriadis, “The design and the formative evaluation
of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles,” Comput. Educ., vol. 41, no. 1,
pp. 87–103, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00031-9.
25. E. Panadero, “A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research,”
Front. Psychol., vol. 8, no. APR, pp. 1–28, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
26. D. Lee, Y. Huh, C. Y. Lin, and C. M. Reigeluth, Technology functions for personalized learning
in learner-centered schools, vol. 66, no. 5. Springer US, 2018.
27. M. A. Chatti and A. Muslim, “The PERLA framework: Blending personalization and learning
analytics,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 244–261, 2019, https://doi.
org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i1.3936.
28. J.-H. Zhang, Y.-X. Zhang, Q. Zou, and S. Huang, “What Learning Analytics Tells Us: Group
Behavior Analysis and Individual Learning Diagnosis based on Long-Term and Large-Scale
Data,” Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 245–258, 2018, [Online]. Available: http://
www.jstor.org/stable/26388404.
29. P. Phobun and J. Vicheanpanya, “Adaptive intelligent tutoring systems for e-learning systems,”
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 4064–4069, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbs
pro.2010.03.641.
30. Z. T. Zhu, M. H. Yu, and P. Riezebos, “A research framework of smart education,” Smart
Learn. Environ., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0026-2.
31. Y. S. Tsai, C. Perrotta, and D. Gašević, “Empowering learners with personalized learning
approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics,” Assess.
Eval. High. Educ., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 554–567, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2019.1676396.
32. C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge.,
2012, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 601–618, https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330661.
33. M. Keppell, “Personalised Learning Strategies for Higher Education,” Futur. Learn. Teach.
Next Gener. Learn. Spaces, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 3–21, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-362
820140000012001.
34. G. D. Kuh, “Guiding Principles for Creating Seamless Learning Environments for Under-
graduates,” J. Coll. Stud. Dev., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 135–148, 1996.
35. M. Sharples et al., “Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report 1,” Milton
Keynes, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/2014-nmc-hor
izon-report-eu-en_online.pdf.
36. M. Keppell, Souter Kay, and M. Riddle, Distributed learning spaces: Physical, blended and
virtual learning spaces in higher education. Hershey: Information Science Publishing, 2012.
37. H. Coates, “A model of online and general campus-based student engagement,” Assess. Eval.
High. Educ., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 121–141, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878.
38. V. Mehdinezhad, “First Year Students ’ Engagement at the University,” Int. Online J. Educ.
Sci., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47–66, 2011.
39. D. Carless, J. Gordon, and N.-F. Liu, How Assessment Supports Learning. Hongkong: Hong
Kong Scholarship Online, 2013.
40. L. Watson, “Lifelong learning in Australia,” Canberra, 2003. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020
3183328-14.
288 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

41. N. J. Jackson, “From a curriculum that integrates work to a curriculum that integrates life:
Changing a university’s conceptions of curriculum,” High. Educ. Res. Dev., vol. 29, no. 5,
pp. 491–505, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.502218.
42. M. Keppell, “Personalised learning strategies for higher education,” Int. Perspect. High. Educ.
Res., vol. 12, pp. 3–21, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-362820140000012001.
43. I. Laakkonen, “Personal learning environments in higher education language courses: an
informal and learner-centred approach,” Second Lang. Teach. Learn. with Technol. Views
Emergent Res., no. 2011, pp. 9–28, 2011, https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2011.000004.
44. H. Alamri, V. Lowell, W. Watson, and S. L. Watson, “Using personalized learning as an instruc-
tional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-determination
and intrinsic motivation,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 322–352, Jul. 2020, https://
doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449.
45. O. Iatrellis, A. Kameas, and P. Fitsilis, “A novel integrated approach to the execution of
personalized and self-evolving learning pathways,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 781–
803, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9802-7.
46. M. Bond, K. Buntins, S. Bedenlier, O. Zawacki-Richter, and M. Kerres, “Mapping research
in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence
map,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-
019-0176-8.
47. F. Gao, T. Luo, and K. Zhang, “Tweeting for learning : A critical analysis of research on
microblogging in education published in 2008-2011,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 43, no. 5,
pp. 783–801, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01357.x.
48. L. Bunting, Y. H. af Segerstad, and W. Barendregt, “Swedish teachers’ views on the use of per-
sonalized learning technologies for teaching children reading in the English classroom,” Int.
J. Child-Computer Interact., vol. 27, Mar. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100236.
49. L. O. Campbell and T. Cox, “Digital Video as a Personalized Learning Assignment: A Quali-
tative Study of Student Authored Video using the ICSDR Model,” J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn.,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 11–24, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i1.21027.
50. S. Gómez, P. Zervas, D. G. Sampson, and R. Fabregat, “Context-aware adaptive and person-
alized mobile learning delivery supported by UoLmP,” J. King Saud Univ. - Comput. Inf. Sci.,
vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 47–61, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.008.
51. H. L. Hallman, “Personalized learning through 1:1 technology initiatives: implications for
teachers and teaching in neoliberal times,” Teach. Educ., vol. 6210, pp. 1–20, 2018, https://
doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1466874.
52. D. Hariyanto, M. B. Triyono, and T. Köhler, “Usability evaluation of personalized adaptive
e-learning system using USE questionnaire,” Knowl. Manag. E-Learning, vol. 12, no. 1,
pp. 85–105, 2020, https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.005.
53. W. Intayoad, T. Becker, and P. Temdee, “Social Context-Aware Recommendation for Person-
alized Online Learning,” Wirel. Pers. Commun., vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 163–179, 2017, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11277-017-4499-2.
54. M. Mudrák, “Personalized e-course implementation in university environment,” Int. J. Inf.
Commun. Technol. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 17–29, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2478/ijicte-2018-
0006.
55. M. Şahin and T. Kişla, “An analysis of university students’ attitudes towards personalized
learning environments,” Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2016.
56. H. Wang and J. D. Lehman, “Using achievement goal-based personalized motivational feed-
back to enhance online learning,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 553–581, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09940-3.
57. H. Xie, D. Zou, R. Zhang, M. Wang, and R. Kwan, “Personalized word learning for university
students: a profile-based method for e-learning systems,” J. Comput. High. Educ., vol. 31, no.
2, pp. 273–289, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09215-0.
 Components and Strategies for Personalized Learning 289

58. A. Liman Kaban, “EFL Students’ Personalized Reading Experiences and its Influence on
Engagement and Online Presences,” Shanlax Int. J. Educ., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 196–209, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i4.4113.
59. C. Troussas, K. Chrysafiadi, and M. Virvou, “Personalized tutoring through a stereotype
student model incorporating a hybrid learning style instrument,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 26,
no. 2, pp. 2295–2307, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10366-2.
60. S. Chaichumpa, S. Wicha, and P. Temdee, “Personalized Learning in a Virtual Learning
Environment Using Modification of Objective Distance,” Wirel. Pers. Commun., vol. 118, no.
3, pp. 2055–2072, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08126-7.
61. R. M. R. Hussain, N. H. Zher, and M. Ismail, “Modelling Personalized Learning Environment
and Students Engagement (PLEaSE),” PLE Conf. 2011, no. August, pp. 1–12, 2011, [Online].
Available: http://journal.webscience.org/575/.
62. R. R. M. Iii, “Adaptive Virtual Learning Environment based on Learning Styles for Person-
alizing E-learning System: Design and Implementation,” Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng., vol. 8,
no. 6, pp. 3398–3406, 2020, https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.f8901.038620.
63. N. I. Othman et al., “Personalizing Learning of English Literature: Perceptions and
Challenges,” J. Pers. Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 104–112, 2015.
64. A. Rahmani, “Personalized versus normal practice of L2 speaking on Iranian EFL learners’
oral proficiency,” Int. J. Appl. Linguist. English Lit., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 151–157, Mar. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.151.
65. F. G. Karaoglan Yilmaz and R. Yilmaz, “Student Opinions About Personalized Recommen-
dation and Feedback Based on Learning Analytics,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 25, no. 4,
pp. 753–768, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09460-8.
66. C. Robinson and J. Sebba, “Personalising learning through the use of technology,” Comput.
Educ., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 767–775, Apr. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.021.
67. Y. F. Chorng, L. Y. A. Ng, and Shahabuddin Hashim, “Improving Self-regulated Learning
through personalized weekly e-Learning Journals: a time series quasi-experimental study,” J.
Bus. Educ. Scholarsh. Teach., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 30–45, 2019.
68. E. Ayedoun, Y. Hayashi, and K. Seta, “Toward Personalized Scaffolding and Fading of Moti-
vational Support in L2 Learner-Dialogue Agent Interactions: An Exploratory Study,” IEEE
Trans. Learn. Technol., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 604–616, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.
2989776.
69. F. Amro and J. Borup, “Exploring Blended Teacher Roles and Obstacles to Success When
Using Personalized Learning Software,” J. Online Learn. Res., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 229–250,
2019.
70. G. Bekmanova, Y. Ongarbayev, B. Somzhurek, and N. Mukatayev, “Personalized training
model for organizing blended and lifelong distance learning courses and its effectiveness in
Higher Education,” J. Comput. High. Educ., no. 0123456789, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12528-021-09282-2.
71. U. Nair, “Soft systems methodology for personalized learning environment,” E-Learning
Digit. Media, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 34–56, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753014558375.
72. T. C. Hsieh, T. I. Wang, C. Y. Su, and M. C. Lee, “A Fuzzy Logic-based Personalized Learn-
ing System for Supporting Adaptive English Learning,” Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 273–288, 2012.
73. D. Nandigam, S. S. Tirumala, and N. Baghaei, “Personalized learning: Current status
and potential,” IC3e 2014 - 2014 IEEE Conf. e-Learning, e-Management e-Services, no.
December, pp. 111–116, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2014.7081251.
74. J. Salinas and B. De-Benito, “Construction of personalized learning pathways through
mixed methods Construcción de itinerarios personalizados de aprendizaje mediante métodos
mixtos,” | Media Educ. Res. J. | Comun., vol. 65, p. 2020, 2020.
290 I. Yuyun and D. Suherdi

75. S. Sarwar, Z. U. Qayyum, R. García-Castro, M. Safyan, and R. F. Munir, “Ontology based

E-learning framework: A personalized, adaptive and context-aware model,” Multimed. Tools
Appl., vol. 78, no. 24, pp. 34745–34771, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08125-8.
76. K. Turvey and M. Hayler, “Collaboration and personalization in teacher education; the case
of blogging,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 68, pp. 42–52, Nov. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2017.08.003.
77. R. Godwin-Jones, “Emerging technologies personal learning environments,” Lang. Learn.
Technol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 3–9, 2009, [Online]. Available: http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/
emerging.pdf%0AJune.
78. J. Hughes, M. Herrington, T. McDonald, and A. Rhodes, “E-portfolios and personalized
learning: Research in practice with two dyslexic learners in UK higher education,” Dyslexia,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 48–64, Feb. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.418.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.