ADAPTING PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: A METHODOLOGY FOR TAILORING ECONOMICS CURRICULA TO INDIVIDUAL LEARNING NEEDS
PDF (Русский)

Keywords

Adaptive learning, economics education, differentiated instruction, learner profiling, personalized curriculum, modular course design, education equity.

Abstract

Adapting pedagogical strategies to meet individual learning needs has become an imperative in modern education, particularly in fields such as economics, where diverse learner profiles present unique challenges and opportunities. This paper presents a comprehensive methodological framework for tailoring economics curricula to accommodate individual learning preferences, cognitive capacities, and prior knowledge. Drawing upon constructivist theories of education, differentiated instruction, and advancements in learning analytics, the framework integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches to curriculum design. It begins with learner profiling, using diagnostic tools to assess prior knowledge, preferred learning styles, and skill gaps. Subsequently, it incorporates adaptive learning technologies and modular course structures to provide personalized learning pathways. Central to the methodology is the iterative feedback loop, where real-time performance data is used to refine instructional strategies and content delivery. The framework is validated through a mixed-methods evaluation in multiple economics education contexts, showcasing its potential to improve learner engagement, comprehension, and academic outcomes. By emphasizing flexibility and inclusivity, this approach not only aligns with the principles of equity in education but also addresses the growing demand for customization in higher education. This paper aims to serve as a foundational guide for educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers striving to optimize economics education for diverse learners.

PDF (Русский)

References

Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (1996). Chalk and talk: A national survey on teaching undergraduate economics. The American Economic Review, 86(2), 448-453.

Ifenthaler, D., & Wopereis, I. (2018). Exploring students’ self-perception of feedback changes in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 969-984.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

Linder, C., & Stetzer, M. (2016). Developing modular curriculum: Principles and practices in the context of science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(5), 678-695.

McGoldrick, K., & Peterson, B. (2020). Technology and teaching: Bridging the gap in economics education. The Journal of Economic Education, 51(2), 123-137.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.

Santamaria, L. J., & Thousand, J. S. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiated instruction: A process-oriented approach to whole schooling. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 1(1), 13-27.

Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. Teachers College Press.

Sosin, K., Blecha, B., Agarwal, R., Bartlett, R. L., & Daniel, J. I. (2019). Efficiency in the use of technology in economics education. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 253-258.

Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2017). Learning analytics and formative assessment in a blended learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 276-286.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. ASCD.

Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2010). The influence of teacher feedback on students' learning outcomes: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 102-114.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.