Enhancing Learners’ Autonomy and Engagement in a Personalized Learning Approach in Social Studies Classes in Batangas City Private Schools

Student autonomy and engagement have been central to the topic of improving pedagogy. Educators employed technology integration, competency-based progression, and flexibility of the learning environment under a personalized learning approach. However, there was a moderate level of exposure to personalized learning and a moderate manifestation of autonomy and engagement in teaching Understanding Culture, Society, and Politics (UCSP).
To address this research gap, a study aims to develop a learning plan for private schools in Batangas City to enhance their autonomy and engagement. The objectives include assessing the level of exposure to personalized learning, determining the extent of manifestation of autonomy and engagement, testing a significant relationship, identifying respondents’ problems and challenges, and creating a learning plan. The study used a mixed-methods approach with an explanatory sequential design, involving 285 Senior High School (SHS) students from Batangas City Private Schools, with five SHS students serving as their school’s representatives for the focus group discussion (FGD).
Data collection includes questionnaires and focus group discussions analyzed using statistical tools such as Weighted Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson’s Correlations, and Thematic Analysis. Findings revealed a moderate level of exposure to personalized learning and a significant relationship, indicating that the personalized learning approach is positively associated with enhanced autonomy and engagement. Despite the advantages of the personalized learning approach, learners experienced challenges such as limited alternative assessment options, activities not aligned with their strengths and preferences, broad coverage of topics, hesitation and low academic confidence, and digital distraction. The personalized learning plan outlined learning objectives, topic, learning strategies, goal, resources, timeline, and assessment.

Personalized Learning Approach, Understanding Culture Society and Politics

1. Adlit, M.F., & Adlit, M.F. (2023). Exploring the efficacy of differentiated assessment in UCSP: perceptions of senior high school teachers and students on enhancing learning outcomes. Asian Pendidikan, 3(2), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.53797/aspen.v3i2.5.2023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aeon, B., & Aguinis, H. (2017). It’s about time: New perspectives and insights on time management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(4), 309-330. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0166 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alamri, H. (2019). Effects of personalized learning as an instructional approach on students’ self-determination and learning engagement in online higher education. Doctoral Dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Asunori F. (2024). Exploring autonomy support and learning preference in higher education: Introducing a flexible and personalized learning environment with technology. Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00111-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bahçeci, F., & Gürol, M. (2016). The effect of individualized instruction system on the academic achievement scores of students. Education Research International, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7392125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beboso, C.G., & Bual, J., (2022). Students' motivation and perception in learning social science using distance learning modality during covid-19- pandemic. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 31(3), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJESS/2022/v31i330750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(2), 1-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Borup, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Spring, K. J. (2020). Academic communities of engagement: An expansive lens for examining support structures in blended and online learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(2), 807-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Mixed methods procedures. In, research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (5th ed., pp. 213-246). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cosme, M. (2019). Impact of Grade 9 Students' Behavior in the Academic Performance in Araling Panlipunan at Wenceslao Trinidad Memorial National High School. Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, 3(2E). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Crisolo, O., Camposano, S., Rogayan Jr. D. (2021). Relevance of social studies in the 21st-century society: students’ perspectives. Journal of Education and Human Resources. 2(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Department of Education, Regional IV-A CALABARZON. National Achievement Test for Grade 12 School Year 2023-204. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dong, A., Yung-Jong, M.S., King, R., (2020). How does prior knowledge influence learning engagement? The mediating roles of cognitive load and help-seeking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 591203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Evanick, J. (2023). From one-size-fits-all to tailored online education: the advantages of personalized learning. https://elearningindustry.com/from-one-size-fits-all-to-tailored-online-education-advantages-of-personalized-learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fauzi, W.J., Radzuan, N.R., Rosli A. K., Ngah, E., Romli, A., Wab, R.D., Ahmad, W.A., (2023). Tertiary educators' awareness of and readiness to use virtual reality (VR) in remote online learning. International Conference on Research in Education and Science. 256-274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gunawardena, M., Bishop, P., Aviruppola, K., (2023). Personalized learning: The simple, the complicated, the complex and the chaotic. Elsivier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104429 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., Marconi, V. C., (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research. 27 (4) 591-608 https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hess, D. E. (2018). Teaching controversial issues: An introduction. Social Education, 82(6), 300–302. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kahne, J., et al. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kahu, E.R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development. 37(1), 58–71. . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Le, C., Wolfe, R., & Steinberg, A. (2014). The past and the promise: today’s competency education movement. Students at the Center: Competency Education Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Liu, W.C., Kang, J.C.K., Ryan, R.M., (2016). Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory. Springer Singapore. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mayordomo, R.M., Guash, T., Espasa, A., Melo, M., (2022). Perceived feedback and its influence on emotional engagement with feedback in online environments. Education and Information Technologies. 27(6), 7947–7971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10948-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2019). In search of deeper learning: the quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Onyema, C., Emeana, B., &Nwakamm, C. (2024). Effects Integrating Personalized learning environment on students' achievement in social studies in secondary schools in imo state. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development. 12(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijeld.2013/vol12n4115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume V): Learning strategies and self-directed learning. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-v_c2e44201-en.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2016). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman's cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de Psicología. 32(3), 450-462. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.219151 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Pane, J.F., Steiner, E.D., Baird, M.D., Hamilton, L.S., Pane, J.D. (2017). Informing progress: insights on personalized learning implementation and effects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Patterson, T. (2016). Personalized Learning in Social Studies Teacher Education. Center on Innovations in Learning, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Schindler, L. Burkholder, G., Mora, O., Marsh, C., (2017). Computers in education: A meta-analysis of engagement outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 14(25), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Schunk, D.H., & DiBenedetto, M.K. (2020). Motivation and social-emotional learning: Theory, research, and practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 60, 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101830 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Soriano, P.P., Abare, M.K., Santiago, J.L. (2024). Learners’ cultural practices and its relation to academic performance in Understanding Culture, Society and Politics. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 18(1), 80-87. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10841793 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Svenningsen, L., et al. (2018). The impact of decreased instructor attention on student engagement and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Development. 45(2), 123-135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Wolters, C.A., & Brady, A.C. (2020). College students’ time management: A self-regulated learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review. 33(4), 1319–1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09519-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zainuddin, Z., & Perera, C.J. (2019). Exploring students’ competence, autonomy and relatedness in the flipped classroom pedagogical model. Educational Technology & Society. 22(3), 176–186. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated leaner: an overview. Theory into Practice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Influence of Korean Drama to Cultural Identity of Students in One Private School
• Children’s Vulnerability in Coastal Slums during Cyclone: A Case Study of Puri Municipality Area
• Mitigating Youth Restiveness Through Social Studies Education: Implications for Institutional Stability, Civic Responsibility, and Student Empowerment in Nigeria
• Students’ Awareness of Sexual Harassment Forms at Campus II, University of Labor and Social Affairs
• Influence of Social Studies Curriculum Content on Youth Restiveness and Civic Responsibility Among Secondary School Students in Nigeria