Development of an Intelligent Assessment-Curriculum Framework for Personalized Learning Pathways
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Learner diversity in prior knowledge, competency, learning pace, engagement, and learning needs creates challenges for standardized assessment and curriculum systems. Conventional assessment often emphasizes achievement scores without continuously informing curriculum decisions, while standardized curricula provide similar content, sequence, and pace for different learners. Intelligent assessment and artificial intelligence (AI) offer opportunities to transform assessment data into actionable information for personalized learning. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an Intelligent Assessment-Curriculum Framework for Personalized Learning Pathways that transforms assessment data into individualized curriculum decisions. The study employed a Research and Development (R&D) approach supported by Design-Based Research (DBR) involving 120 students, 20 teachers, and 10 experts. Data included diagnostic assessment, cognitive, behavioral, performance, error-pattern, temporal, engagement, and progress data. The framework was developed through needs analysis, learner-data analysis, framework design, prototype development, expert validation, revision, pilot implementation, and evaluation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, learner profiling, expert validation, questionnaires, observations, and thematic analysis. Four learner profiles were identified: advanced (20.0%), proficient (31.7%), developing (35.0%), and remediation (13.3%). The framework integrated intelligent assessment, learner profiling, mastery analysis, curriculum adaptation, personalized pathway generation, continuous assessment, and teacher monitoring. Expert validation reached 89.6%, while practicality reached 87.2% for teachers and 85.4% for students. The framework provides an integrated mechanism connecting assessment, learner profiling, curriculum adaptation, personalized learning, supporting more responsive and data-informed educational practices.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K–12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and professional support. In Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting theory and practice (pp. 43–61). Springer.
Benson, D. B. (2011). Mode of error analysis of student responses to pre-requisite knowledge assessments. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 22–1071.
Bernacki, M. L., Greene, M. J., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom, to what, how, and for what purpose (s)? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1675–1715.
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3–31.
Carroll, P. E., & Bailey, A. L. (2016). Do decision rules matter? A descriptive study of English language proficiency assessment classifications for English-language learners and native English speakers in fifth grade. Language Testing, 33(1), 23–52.
Cavanagh, T., Chen, B., Lahcen, R. A. M., & Paradiso, J. R. (2020). Constructing a design framework and pedagogical approach for adaptive learning in higher education: A practitioner’s perspective. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 173–197.
Claes, J., Cornelissen, V., McDermott, C., Moyna, N., Pattyn, N., Cornelis, N., Gallagher, A., McCormack, C., Newton, H., & Gillain, A. (2020). Feasibility, acceptability, and clinical effectiveness of a technology-enabled cardiac rehabilitation platform (physical activity toward health-I): randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(2), e14221.
Demchenko, Y., Maijer, M., & Comminiello, L. (2021). Data scientist professional revisited: Competences definition and assessment, curriculum and education path design. Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Big Data and Education, 52–62.
Gentile, J. R., & Lalley, J. P. (2003). Standards and mastery learning: Aligning teaching and assessment so all children can learn. Corwin Press.
Gipps, C. (2011). Beyond Testing (Classic Edition): Towards a theory of educational assessment. Routledge.
Ifenthaler, D., & Widanapathirana, C. (2014). Development and validation of a learning analytics framework: Two case studies using support vector machines. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1), 221–240.
Larson, M. G. (2006). Descriptive statistics and graphical displays. Circulation, 114(1), 76–81.
Nelson, G. L., Strömbäck, F., Korhonen, A., Begum, M., Blamey, B., Jin, K. H., Lonati, V., MacKellar, B., & Monga, M. (2020). Differentiated assessments for advanced courses that reveal issues with prerequisite skills: A Design Investigation. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 75–129).
Peng, H., Ma, S., & Spector, J. M. (2019). Personalized adaptive learning: an emerging pedagogical approach enabled by a smart learning environment. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1–14.
Salinas, J., & De-Benito, B. (2020). Construction of Personalized Learning Pathways through Mixed Methods. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal, 28(65), 31–41.
Shivaraju, P. T., Manu, G., Vinaya, M., & Savkar, M. K. (2017). Evaluating the effectiveness of pre-and post-test model of learning in a medical school. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 7(9), 947.
Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Formative and stealth assessment. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 311–321). Springer.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence.
Tetzlaff, L., Schmiedek, F., & Brod, G. (2021). Developing personalized education: A dynamic framework. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 863–882.
Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Virvou, M. (2019). Using a multi module model for learning analytics to predict learners’ cognitive states and provide tailored learning pathways and assessment. In Machine learning paradigms: Advances in learning analytics (pp. 9–22). Springer.
Winget, M., & Persky, A. M. (2022). A practical review of mastery learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 86(10), ajpe8906.
Xie, H., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Wang, C.-C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education, 140, 103599.
Young, K. L., Rudin-Brown, C. M., Lenné, M. G., & Williamson, A. R. (2012). The implications of cross-regional differences for the design of In-vehicle Information Systems: A comparison of Australian and Chinese drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 43(3), 564–573.
Yudkowsky, R., Park, Y. S., Lineberry, M., Knox, A., & Ritter, E. M. (2015). Setting mastery learning standards. Academic Medicine, 90(11), 1495–1500.
Zhong, S., Clark, M., Hou, X.-Y., Zang, Y., & FitzGerald, G. (2015). Development of key indicators of hospital resilience: a modified Delphi study. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 20(2), 74–82.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.