Abstract
This action research examines the effectiveness of personalized learning support in ensuring the development of academic engagement and progress of students which is regarded as "lagging behind.” The recognized ways in the process are the use of VARK learning styles, goal orientation theory and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). A three-step model is implemented by the study: (1) VARK screening to identify students' learning preferences, (2) goal orientation profiling to understand students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and (3) ZPD-based personalized support planning to offer customized scaffolding. The study is intended to assess the effectiveness of a coordinated support system which actively involves classroom teachers, home tutors and parents whereas these students' needs are to be managed. The research findings suggest that students’ engagement and retention of content are highly improved when teaching methods are coordinated with students' VARK learning preferences. Besides, higher persistence and more intensive learning was achieved through promoting a mastery goal orientation. On the other hand, increased anxiety and reliance on external validation was observed among performance-oriented students. The incorporation of ZPD-focused strategies provided the opportunities for effective scaffolding and gradual development of student independence. The research further shows that continuous as well as personalized intervention can be ensured through maintaining individualized learning profiles combining VARK, goal orientation, and ZPD data. This study points out the significance of an all-inclusive and collaborative approach to providing support for disadvantaged students. The adaptiveness, inclusiveness and responsiveness of the instruction towards individual learning needs are thus guaranteed. The findings present that a sustainable framework for improving educational outcomes for students who are going through academic struggles can be achieved through personalized profiles integrated with continuing assessment and teacher reflection. The study provides a conclusion by offering suggestions for ensuring the application of these strategies in the classroom. It also provides recommendations for further research on prolonged effects of such personalized approaches.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
Baykan, Z., & Nacar, M. (2007). Learning styles of first-year medical students attending Erciyes University in Kayseri, Turkey. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 158–160.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.
Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137–155.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Corwin Press.
Larkin, M. (2002). Using scaffolded instruction to optimize learning. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 103–113.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77–86.
Othman, N., & Amiruddin, M. H. (2010). Different perspectives of learning styles from VARK model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(2), 652–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.088
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130–145.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
Shabani, K. (2010). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers’ Professional Development Karim. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 3(4).
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Hasib Ahmed (Author)