Place (Personalized Learning Courseware) For ESL Teachers as a Resource to Improve Students' Grammar

This study investigates the potential of Personalised Learning Courseware (PLaCE) as a resource to enhance grammar instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) settings. In an increasingly interconnected world, proficiency in English grammar is paramount for ESL learners, serving as the foundation for effective communication. Traditional pedagogical approaches and standardised materials often struggle to address the diverse needs and learning styles of ESL learners. PLaCE emerges as a promising solution, leveraging technology to provide ESL teachers with dynamic and adaptable tools for personalised grammar instruction. The development of the PLaCE involved drawing upon the theoretical frameworks of Mayer’s, Gagne nine events of instruction and personalised learning. The courseware was designed to provide a personalised learning experience for ESL learners, incorporating adaptive learning technologies that adjust the content and difficulty level to the learner's individual needs. The courseware also provided real-time feedback on learners' progress, allowing teachers to monitor their learners' performance and identify areas of weakness. The results showed that PLaCE had a positive impact on students' grammar learning, with experimental groups demonstrating significant improvements in grammar knowledge and application. Hence, this study evaluates the measurable impacts of PLaCE on learners' grammar proficiency, highlighting its potential to bridge gaps in conventional grammar instruction. Also, it suggests that personalised learning courseware can be a valuable addition to traditional classroom instruction. However, future research is needed to examine the long-term effects of PLaCE and to investigate the specific features of PLaCE that contribute to its effectiveness.

Personalised Learning Courseware, English as a Second Language, Mayer's multimedia theory

1. Abbas, S. G. & Ayaz, N. (2025). Exploring The Benefits of Personalized Learning In Secondary Education: A Descriptive Study. Policy Journal of Social Science Review, 3(5), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abhishikta, A., et al. (2025). Grammar as a cornerstone of linguistic competence in ESL. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 21(1), 45-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ajani, Y. A., Saliju, M. I., & Tella, A. (2022). Evaluating the instructional flexibility of off-the-shelf digital solutions in learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(2), 145–163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alisoy, H. (2025). The Impact of AI-Powered Personalized Learning on ESL Student Outcomes. EuroGlobal Journal of Linguistics and Language Education, 2(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.69760/egjlle.2500187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Al-Jarf, R. (2005). The effects of online grammar instruction on low proficiency EFL college learners’ achievement. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 166-190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Al-Mansour, N.S., Al-Shorman, R.A (2011). The effect of computer-assisted instruction on Saudi University students’ learning of English. Journal of King Saud University – Languages and Translation, 10.1016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Arikan, A., & Taraf, H. U. (2010). Contextualizing young learners' English lessons with cartoons: Focus on grammar and vocabulary. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5212-5215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Azizah, H., David, A., Peter, W., & Rohani, T. (2005). Country Report: Development of e‐Learning in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://203.183.1.152/aen/content/conference/2004/file/S2_Malaysia.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Badiyani, I. M. (2005). Development and Try-out of Computer Aided Language Learning (CALL) Package for Teaching of Action Verbs in English Language.M.Ed., Saurashtra University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Baharudin, S. N., Zulkiflei, K., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Using Multimedia to Promote Students’ Learning and Understanding of English Literature in Secondary School. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v9-i2/5525 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bakir, S., & Aziz, A. A. (2022). Primary school teachers' perceptions on the effectiveness of CEFR textbooks in Malaysia: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(3), 1406–1418. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Inthanon, P., & Wised, S. (2024). Tailoring instructional approaches to meet diverse linguistic needs in digital environments. Journal of Personalized Learning, 9(3), 201-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Baturay, M. H., Daloglu, A., & Yildirim, S. (2010). Language practice with multimedia supported web-based grammar revision material. ReCALL, 22(3), 313-331. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bergstrom, A., Cleary, L., & Peacock, T. (2003). The seventh generation: Native youth speak about finding the good path. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chen, N. S., Hsieh, S. W., & Kinshuk. (2008). Effects of short-term memory and content representation type on mobile learning. Language, Learning and Technology, 12(3), 93-113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Clark, R. & Mayer, R. E., (2003). The promise of educational psychology (vol II): Teaching for meaningful learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Coley, C. (2016). The importance of customization in the creation of e-learning content. Retrieved from https://www.gomolearning.com/blog/importance-customization-creation-e-learning-content-2/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Din, A. M., & Yamat, H. (2020). Challenges of using the 'Super Minds' CEFR-aligned textbook in Malaysian primary ESL classrooms. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(9), 890–901. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Dominguez Arellano, D. (2025). Grammatical Accuracy on the Students’ Communication Skills and Performance. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications 8(1), 384–392. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dong, J., Li, X., Xu, C., Yang, X., Yang, G., Wang, X., & Wang, M. (2021). Dual encoding for video retrieval by text. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(8), 4065-4080. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Frederick, N. (2015). The professional importance of grammar and how it should be taught. Retrieved from http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/professional-importance-grammar-and-how-it-should-be-taught [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Godsk, M.; Møller, K.L. (2025). Engaging Students in Higher Education with Educational Technology. Education and Information Technologies. 30, 2941–2976. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Goksu, I., Ozkaya, E., & Gunduz, A. (2022). The content analysis and bibliometric mapping of CALL journal. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 2018–2048. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1857409 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Gonzalez-Bueno, M., & Perez, L. (2000). Electronic Mail in Foreign Language Writing: A Study of Grammatical and Lexical Accuracy, and Quantity of Language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 189-98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Greany, S. J. (2007). Students perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning and Technology, 20(7), 12-15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hasumi, T., & Chiu, M.-S. (2024). Technology-enhanced language learning in English language education: Performance analysis, core publications, and emerging trends. Cogent Education, 11(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2346044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hémard, D. (2006). Evaluating hypermedia structures as a means of improving language learning strategies and motivation. ReCALL, 18(1), 24-44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Heng, L. C., & Said, M. N. H. M. (2020). Effects of digital game-based learning apps based on Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning in mathematics for primary school students. Innovative Teaching and Learning Journal (ITLJ), 4(1), 65-78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hussain, M.A., M. Zafar Iqbal, M.Z. & Akhtar, M.S. (2010). Technology Based Learning Environment and Student Achievement in English as a Foreign Language in Pakistan. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 37, 129-133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Inthanon, P., & Wised, S. (2024). Tailoring instructional approaches to meet diverse linguistic needs in digital environments. Journal of Personalized Learning, 9(3), 201-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Intiana, S. R., Sujana, I., & Husni, M. (2024). Customized multimedia instructional design for effective second language acquisition. International Journal of Language Education, 8(1), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kahu, E., Nelson, K., & Picton, C. (2017). Student interest as a key driver of engagement for first year students. Student Success, 8(2), 55-66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Lim, J., & Kessler, G. (2024). The mediating role of teachers: Adapting digital resources for contextualized language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(3), 415–435. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Lim, M. H., & Aryadoust, V. (2021). A scientometric review of research trends in computer-assisted language learning (1977 – 2020). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2675–2700. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1892768 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mayer, R. E. & Clark, R. C. (2023). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mayer, R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annual review of psychology, 70, 531-549. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mayer, R.E. (2024). The Past, Present, and Future of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36, 8, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Nabah, A. M. (2012). The impact of computer assisted grammar teaching on EFL pupils’ performance in Jordan. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 8(1), 71-90. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Paivio, A. (1990). Dual Coding Theory. In Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach (pp. 583-605). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.003.0004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Pletka, B. (2007). Educating the Net Generation: How to Engage Students in the 21st Century. Santa Monica Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Rudolph, M. (2017). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Online Higher Education, 1(2). https://online-shc.com/arc/ojs/index.php/JOHE/article/view/11/11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner Autonomy and CALL Environments. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012208 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12(2), 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Umar, M., & Aziz, A. A. (2024). Differentiated instruction in the Malaysian ESL classroom: Empowering teachers as instructional designers. Asian Journal of University Education, 20(2), 210–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Wang, J., & Sun, L. (2025). Impact of Personalized Learning Paths Supported by Mobile Technology on Student Academic Achievement. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 19(08), pp. 174–187. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v19i08.55339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wu, Y. L. (2014). Exploration on multimedia teaching mode of University English teaching. Computer, Intelligent Computing and Education Technology, 1, 1223 – 1226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Zakaria, S., & Yunus, M. M. (2020). Flipped classroom in improving ESL primary students' tenses learning. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 9(3), 151–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). A state-of-the-art review of the modes and effectiveness of multimedia input for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2790–2816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1896555 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar