CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Education and Learning InterventionsEducational Environments and Student OutcomesTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Personalized Learning in the Smart Classroom Learning Environment: Development and Validation of an Instrument

Open access
Tuo, Pan, Bicakci, Mehmet, Ziegler, Albert, Zhang, BaoHui·2025·Education Sciences
DOI 10.3390/educsci15050620
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Smart classrooms leverage intelligent and mobile technologies to create highly interactive, student-centered environments conducive to personalized learning. However, measuring students’ personalized learning experiences in these technologically advanced spaces remains a challenge. This study addresses the gap by developing and validating a Smart Classroom Environment–Personalized Learning Scale (SCE-PL). Drawing on a comprehensive literature review, content-expert feedback, and iterative item refinement, an initial pool of 48 items was reduced to 39 and subsequently to 34 following item-level analyses. Two datasets were collected from Chinese middle-school students across three provinces, capturing diverse socio-economic contexts and grade levels (7th, 8th, and 9th). EFA on the first dataset (n = 424) revealed a nine-factor structure collectively explaining 78.12% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second dataset (n = 584) verified an excellent model fit. Internal consistency indices (Cronbach’s α > 0.87, composite reliability > 0.75) and strong convergent and discriminant validity evidence (based on AVE and inter-factor correlations) further support the scale’s psychometric soundness. The SCE-PL thus offers researchers, policymakers, and practitioners a robust, theory-driven instrument for assessing personalized learning experiences in smart classroom environments, paving the way for data-informed pedagogy, optimized learning spaces, and enhanced technological integration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/educsci15050620

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. AERA (2011). AERA code of ethics: American educational research association approved by the AERA council February 2011. Educational Researcher, 40, (3), 145–156. · DOI
  2. Basham, 2016, An operationalized understanding of personalized learning, Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 126, 10.1177/0162643416660835 · DOI
  3. Blumer, 1966, Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert mead, American Journal of Sociology, 71, 535, 10.1086/224171 · DOI
  4. Bulger, 2016, Personalized learning: The conversations we’re not having, Data and Society, 22, 1
  5. Morse, J. M., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K., Clarke, A. E., Corbin, J., Porr, C. J., and Stern, P. N. (2021). The genesis, grounds, and growth of constructivist grounded theory. Developing grounded theory: The second generation revisited, Routledge. [2nd ed.]. · DOI
  6. Chatti, 2010, Toward a personal learning environment framework, International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 1, 66, 10.4018/jvple.2010100105 · DOI
  7. Chen, 2005, Personalized e-learning system using item response theory, Computers & Education, 44, 237, 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.006 · DOI
  8. Chen, 2016, Investigation of multiple human factors in personalized learning, Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 119, 10.1080/10494820.2013.825809 · DOI
  9. Chen, 2010, Web-based interaction: A review of three important human factors, International Journal of Information Management, 30, 379, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.009 · DOI
  10. Cheng, 2023, Impact of smart classrooms combined with student-centered pedagogies on rural students’ learning outcomes: Pedagogy and duration as moderator variables, Computers and Education, 207, 104911, 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104911 · DOI
  11. Cheung, 2021, Shaping the future learning environments with smart elements: Challenges and opportunities, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 16, 10.1186/s41239-021-00254-1 · DOI
  12. Dai, 2013, Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice, Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151, 10.1177/0016986213490020 · DOI
  13. Dai, 2011, State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010 (April), Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126, 10.1177/0016986210397831 · DOI
  14. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications, Sage Publications, Inc.
  15. 2019, Student self-reported use of standards-based grading resources and feedback, European Journal of Engineering Education, 44, 838, 10.1080/03043797.2018.1483896 · DOI
  16. Fake, 2020, Personalized learning within online workforce learning environments: Exploring implementations, obstacles, opportunities, and perspectives of workforce leaders, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 789, 10.1007/s10758-020-09441-x · DOI
  17. Fan, 2024, Construction and application of English smart classroom teaching model integrating MOOC and flipped classroom, Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9, 398
  18. Farkas, 2003, Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes, Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 541, 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100023 · DOI
  19. Fraser, 1998, Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications, Learning Environments Research, 1, 7, 10.1023/A:1009932514731 · DOI
  20. Gambo, 2023, Evaluating students’ experiences in self-regulated smart learning environment, Education and Information Technologies, 28, 547, 10.1007/s10639-022-11126-0 · DOI
  21. Glaser, 1964, Awareness contexts and social interaction, American Sociological Review, 29, 669, 10.2307/2091417 · DOI
  22. 2017, Teacher personality: A review of psychological research and guidelines for a more comprehensive theory in educational psychology, Open Review of Educational Research, 4, 75, 10.1080/23265507.2017.1339572 · DOI
  23. Gruijters, 2019, Using principal component analysis to validate psychological scales: Bad statistical habits we should have broken yesterday II, The European Health Psychologist, 20, 544
  24. Härdle, W. K., and Simar, L. (2015). Applied multivariate statistical anaylsis, Springer. [4th ed.]. · DOI
  25. Hinkin, 1995, A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations, Journal of Management, 21, 967, 10.1177/014920639502100509 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Hu, Y., Huang, J., and Kong, F. (2022). College students’ learning perceptions and outcomes in different classroom environments: A community of inquiry perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. · DOI
  27. Huber, S. A., and Seidel, T. (2018). Comparing teacher and student perspectives on the interplay of cognitive and motivational-affective student characteristics. PLoS ONE, 13, (8). · DOI
  28. Kaur, 2022, Smart classroom: A review and research agenda, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 2430, 10.1109/TEM.2022.3176477 · DOI
  29. Kell, 2018, Noncognitive proponents’ conflation of “cognitive skills” and “cognition” and its implications, Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 25, 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.025 · DOI
  30. Ketscher, L., Stoeger, H., Vialle, W., and Ziegler, A. (2025). Same classroom, different reality: Secondary school students’ perceptions of STEM lessons—A pioneering study. Education Sciences, 15, (4). · DOI
  31. Kloos, 2020, Educational technology in the age of natural interfaces and deep learning, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 15, 26, 10.1109/RITA.2020.2979165 · DOI
  32. Koh, 2020, Team-based learning analytics: An empirical case study, Academic Medicine, 95, 872, 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003157 · DOI
  33. Lemert, 1974, Beyond Mead: The societal reaction to deviance, Social Problems, 21, 457, 10.2307/799985 · DOI
  34. Lindsley, 1992, Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 51, 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-51 · DOI
  35. Liu, C., and Wang, X. (, January March). Application of smart education in college English flipped classroom. 8th International Conference on Social Network, Communication and Education (SNCE 2018), Shenyang, China. · DOI
  36. Liu, 2022, Exploring the relationship between social interaction, cognitive processing and learning achievements in a MOOC discussion forum, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60, 132, 10.1177/07356331211027300 · DOI
  37. Lycurgus, T., Kilbourne, A., and Almirall, D. (2024). Approaches to statistical efficiency when comparing the embedded adaptive interventions in a SMART. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 10769986241251419. · DOI
  38. Ma, 2024, Teacher-student interaction modes in smart classroom based on lag sequential analysis, Education and Information Technologies, 29, 15087, 10.1007/s10639-024-12733-9 · DOI
  39. Major, 2021, The effectiveness of technology-supported personalised learning in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis, British Journal of Educational Technology, 52, 1935, 10.1111/bjet.13116 · DOI
  40. Malekigorji, M., and Hatahet, T. (2020). Classroom response system in a super-blended learning and teaching model: Individual or team-based learning?. Pharmacy, 8, (4). · DOI
  41. MDPI (n.d.). Research and publication ethics, MDPI. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/ethics.
  42. Mead, G. H. (1972). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist, University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934).
  43. Merton, 1995, The Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect, Social Forces, 74, 379, 10.2307/2580486 · DOI
  44. Morse, J. M., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K., Clarke, A. E., Corbin, J., Porr, C. J., and Stern, P. N. (2021). The challenges to and future(s) of grounded theory. Developing grounded theory: The second generation revisited, Routledge. [2nd ed.]. · DOI
  45. 2023, A “fractal” expander-compressor-supplier formative research method on array processing, Education and Information Technologies, 28, 16349, 10.1007/s10639-023-11837-y · DOI
  46. Ouf, 2017, A proposed paradigm for smart learning environment based on semantic web, Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 796, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.030 · DOI
  47. Price, 2015, Transforming learning for the smart learning environment: Lessons learned from the Intel education initiatives, Smart Learning Environments, 2, 16, 10.1186/s40561-015-0022-y · DOI
  48. Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., and Tibbets, B. (2009). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning spaces. Learning spaces in higher education—Positive outcomes by design. Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium, University of Queensland.
  49. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction, Routledge.
  50. Keppell, M., Souter, K., and Riddle, M. (2012). Designing and evaluating learning spaces: PaSsPorT and design-based research. Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education: Concepts for the modern learning environment, IGI Global. · DOI
  51. Robson, C., and McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied setting, Wiley. [4th ed.].
  52. Saini, 2019, How smart are smart classrooms? A review of smart classroom technologies, ACM Computing Surveys, 52, 130
  53. Sampson, D. G., and Karagiannidis, C. (2002). Personalised learning: Educational, technological and standardisation perspective. Digital Education Review, 24–39.
  54. Santhosh, 2023, Multimodal assessment of interest levels in reading: Integrating eye-tracking and physiological sensing, IEEE Access, 11, 93994, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3311268 · DOI
  55. Sharma, B. N., Nand, R., Naseem, M., Reddy, E., Narayan, S. S., and Reddy, K. (, January December). Smart learning in the pacific: Design of new pedagogical tools. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, NSW, Australia. · DOI
  56. Shaw, 2022, Classifying students based on cognitive state in flipped learning pedagogy, Future Generation Computer Systems, 126, 305, 10.1016/j.future.2021.08.018 · DOI
  57. Sternberg, 2022, Giftedness as trait vs. state, Roeper Review, 44, 135, 10.1080/02783193.2022.2071365 · DOI
  58. Sungkur, 2021, Design and implementation of a SMART learning environment for the upskilling of cybersecurity professionals in Mauritius, Education and Information Technologies, 26, 3175, 10.1007/s10639-020-10408-9 · DOI
  59. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. [5th ed.].
  60. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing the world, McGraw Hill.
  61. (1996). The Nuremberg Code (1947). BMJ, 313, (7070), 1448. · DOI
  62. Timothy, 2010, The self-directed learning with technology scale (SDLTS) for young students: An initial development and validation, Computers & Education, 55, 1764, 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.001 · DOI
  63. Chang, M., Popescu Kinshuk, E., Chen, N.-S., Jemni, M., Huang, R., and Spector, J. M. (2018). Innovative maker movement platform for K-12 education as a smart learning environment. Challenges and solutions in smart learning, Singapore. · DOI
  64. Troussas, 2020, Collaboration and fuzzy-modeled personalization for mobile game-based learning in higher education, Computers & Education, 144, 103698, 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103698 · DOI
  65. Elen, 2021, An overview of 25 years of research on digital personalised learning in primary and secondary education: A systematic review of conceptual and methodological trends, British Journal of Educational Technology, 52, 1798, 10.1111/bjet.13148 · DOI
  66. Walkington, 2020, Appraising research on personalized learning: Definitions, theoretical alignment, advancements, and future directions, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52, 235, 10.1080/15391523.2020.1747757 · DOI
  67. Wang, 2023, Examining the effect of seat location on students’ real-time social interactions in a smart classroom using experience sampling method, Journal of Computers in Education, 10, 217, 10.1007/s40692-022-00229-9 · DOI
  68. Wirthwein, 2019, Personality and school functioning of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents: Self-perceptions and parents’ assessments, Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 16, 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.003 · DOI
  69. Xie, 2019, Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017, Computers & Education, 140, 103599, 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Yang, 2015, Development and validation of a scale for evaluating technology-rich classroom environment, Journal of Computers in Education, 2, 145, 10.1007/s40692-015-0029-y · DOI
  71. Yu, 2024, Intelligent retrieval and comprehension of entrepreneurship education resources based on semantic summarization of knowledge graphs, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1210, 10.1109/TLT.2024.3364155 · DOI
  72. Yuan, X., Yu, L., and Wu, H. (2021). Awareness of sustainable development goals among students from a Chinese senior high school. Education Sciences, 11, (9). · DOI
  73. Zhan, 2021, Smart classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioural sequence analysis, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 96, 10.14742/ajet.6523 · DOI
  74. Zhang, 2022, Measuring personalized learning through the Lens of UDL: Development and content validation of a student self-report instrument, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72, 101121, 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101121 · DOI
  75. Zhang, 2020a, Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis, Educational Research Review, 31, 100339, 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100339 · DOI
  76. Zhang, 2020b, Personalized learning and ESSA: What we know and where we go, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52, 253, 10.1080/15391523.2020.1728448 · DOI
  77. Zhao, J., Zhang, L., and Yao, X. (2023). Developing and validating a scale for university teacher’s caring behavior in online teaching. Education Sciences, 13, (3). · DOI
  78. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. Conceptions of giftedness, Cambridge University Press. [2nd ed.]. · DOI · Paper page
  79. Ziegler, 2012, Shortcomings of the IQ-based construct of underachievement, Roeper Review, 34, 123, 10.1080/02783193.2012.660726 · DOI
  80. Ziegler, 2017, Systemic gifted education: A theoretical introduction, Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 183, 10.1177/0016986217705713 · DOI
  81. Ziegler, 2012, Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change, Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 194, 10.1177/0016986212456070 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Tuo, P., Bicakci, M., Ziegler, A., & Zhang, B.
Affiliations
  • Shaanxi Normal University (CN)
  • Department of Psychology, Educational Psychology and Research on Excellence, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Theology, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, 90478 Nürnberg, Germany
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Zhang, BaoHui
ORCID
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-05-19
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
620
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/educsci15050620
OpenAlex
W4410523711
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 1
FWCI
9.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OPUS FAU (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV), on behalf of the Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
China Scholarship Council’s 2023 Program for Study Abroad for Graduate Students from Key Universities (202306870075)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Learning Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
personalized learning, smart classroom, scale development, instrument validation, student-centered learning environment, junior high school students, educational technology integration, factor structure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review