Customizing Course Content to Meet Student Needs

Given the increased diversity of college students and their varied learning goals and expectations, a one-size-fits-all course design may not meet the needs of all students. To meet the diverse needs of college students, course content can be customized. This brief presents an approach involving two non-graded initial assignments: a Student Profile and Learning Goals form and a pre-course test. These assignments help instructors assess students’ backgrounds, learning goals, and knowledge levels to tailor instruction and customize course content. Personalized learning enhances engagement and motivation, fostering a more enjoyable and impactful learning experience for students.

Introduction

Teaching is a blend of scientific precision and performance/entertainment. Educators know that each course is unique, and even two sections of the same course in the same semester may vary to accommodate student needs. Adapting a course to cater to the evolving demands is an exciting challenge. A one-size-fits-all course design will not likely be sufficient, given the increasing diversity of college students and their varied learning goals and expectations.¹ In higher education, course customization has been proposed as a practice to keep the curriculum current with evolving societal demands.² Historically, such practices have been employed based on students’ learning goals and learning styles.^3,4 Customization of course content lets the instructor present materials in a way that supports student learning within any unique classroom.⁵ It helps students master challenging concepts more effectively by providing additional support or alternative explanations when needed. This personalized approach can lead to improved academic performance and higher grades.⁶ When students feel that their educational experience is personalized to meet their needs, they are more likely to be satisfied with the course and the overall learning environment.¹ Higher levels of satisfaction can lead to better student outcomes and retention rates. If student input is used early on, students may feel seen and heard. The course customization approach also helps to prepare the students for their future careers by focusing on relevant skills, knowledge, and experiences. This preparation can increase students’ readiness for the workforce and help them achieve their professional goals.²

In higher education, course customization can be accomplished through backward design. Designing a course “backwards” involves determining the desired outcome and then finding the paths you can take to get there.⁷ Consider, for instance, an upper-level undergraduate and graduate course in Crop Physiology, wherein the foundational principles of growth and development are imparted with precision. However, the emphasis on specific physiological events and conceptual elaboration remains flexible, contingent upon the diverse learning objectives of the student cohort. This pedagogical flexibility preserves the integrity of core concepts while tailoring the delivery to suit individual learning trajectories. To customize the course content based on students’ learning goals, the instructor can check an incoming class’s degree paths and adjust the course to resonate with their career trajectories. Moreover, the customization extends to content delivery methodologies, catering to diverse learning styles prevalent among students. For example, to accommodate kinesthetic, visual, and auditory learners, an instructor may tailor assignments and projects. Through such practices, instructors facilitate a transition of the course from a teacher-centric to a learner-centric paradigm.⁸ Customized assignments can challenge students to apply their knowledge creatively and solve real-world problems, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter.³ Thus, the approach offers the instructors an additional method to encourage critical thinking and independent inquiry.

Presented here is an innovative framework for personalized learning within the first two weeks of the semester, whereby course content is customized to meet student needs. The course customization approach introduces two foundational exercises to initiate the learning journey: the Student Profile & Learning Goals (SPLG) form and the pre-course test. These non-graded assignments serve as conduits for gauging the class’s baseline knowledge and inform pedagogical decisions regarding content delivery. These tools may be useful in refining the syllabus. By embracing personalized learning methodologies, educators empower students with educational experiences tailored to their interests and aspirations. Such targeted engagement may not only enhance motivation but also foster a more satisfying learning environment.

Description of Teaching Activity

The approach to course customization detailed in this brief was applied in an upper-level undergraduate and graduate course, PES 4220/6220 (Major World Crops). The class size was thirty-five students. The course customization approach involved the execution of two tasks for students: the SPLG form and the pre-course test. To complete these tasks effectively, the syllabus was made available to students for review before the first class session. During the initial class meeting, students were asked to complete both the SPLG form and the pre-course test. The SPLG form was comprised of eleven questions and was designed to gather information on students’ backgrounds, knowledge levels, work experiences, learning objectives, expectations for the course, career aspirations, and feedback on course content (figure 1). The data collected from the SPLG form was utilized to tailor the course content, such as adjusting applied and fundamental information to be taught on specific topics. The pre-course test was a comprehensive quiz consisting of twenty-five questions encompassing the entire course curriculum. The test format utilized true/false, fill-in-the-blanks, and multiple-choice questions. As an example, the pre-course test administered in Spring 2024 is attached in the Appendix. The pre-course test, combined with the SPLG form, aided in gauging the class’s knowledge level and determining fundamental concepts that required explanation throughout the semester. In the first class session, the purpose of both the SPLG form and the pre-course test was explained to students before they completed each assignment. Following the class, the instructor dedicated approximately forty-five minutes to evaluate the SPLG form and the pre-course test, synthesize the responses, and identify any necessary adjustments to the content and instructional delivery.

PES 4220/6220 (Major World Crops) covers the economic importance, distribution, adaptation, production, and utilization of major agronomic crops of the world. Global food security crops, as well as crops important to US agriculture, are discussed in this course. In terms of production practices, though the original plan was to discuss that within a large-scale production context, in response to students’ interest in learning about subsistence farming in developing parts of the world, the content was modified regarding production practices of global food security crops (e.g., rice) within a small-scale production context that is prevalent in the developing countries. Adjustments were also made based on the predominant career goals of the class. For instance, the balance between the conceptual content and practical know-how was modified according to whether the majority of students were pursuing research-oriented or Extension/outreach careers. This was achieved primarily by adapting course content sources, such as research articles versus crop production guides. For example, conceptual content on corn hybrid vigor was minimized, and corn hybrid production practices were elaborated in more detail.

At the beginning of the second lecture, five to ten minutes were dedicated to explaining the modifications for the course content and instructional delivery based on the student responses on the SPLG form and the pre-course test. Furthermore, the instructor reiterated these adjustments in subsequent classes as appropriate, allowing students to recognize and appreciate the tailored approach that was incorporated from the SPLG form and the pre-course test.

Figure 1. The Student Profile & Learning Goals (SPLG) form that was adapted to tailor course content to students’ needs. This SPLG form is an adaptation of a “Personal Introduction Form” developed by Dr. Emerson Shipe, a retired Clemson University professor. Image credit: Provided by author.

Discussion of Outcomes

The major outcome of course customization in PES 4220/6220 was the instructor’s ability to make the course more relevant to the enrolled students each semester. It helped to better articulate the connections between academic concepts and real-world applications. Students felt that this built a better rapport within the classroom because students felt their voice was heard. This positive relationship encouraged students to seek assistance when needed which was evident through multiple students approaching with questions related to practices they wanted to modify on their family farms based on what they learned in the class. As previously reported, when students see that the course content is tailored to their interests, backgrounds, and career aspirations, they are more likely to actively engage with the material, which leads to better comprehension and retention of the subject matter.⁹ The course customization approach enabled the students to realize the practical value of what they were learning, which increased their motivation. Further, customizing course content based on students’ interests helped address the diverse needs of students from different cultural and educational backgrounds. By acknowledging and accommodating these differences, the instructor created a more inclusive learning environment where all students felt valued and supported. By creating teaching aid resources, alternative explanations, and supplementary materials, these changes to the course syllabus helped adapt to the student’s needs and the instructor’s goals. Finally, the course customization approach provided the instructor with an opportunity to offer the course to students inspired by emerging trends in the field and to ensure that the curriculum remains relevant. It benefits the instructor with new content that changes yearly and is stimulating and invigorating.

Reflection of Outcomes

In PES 4220/6220, the approach to personalized learning enhanced engagement by providing learners with content tailored to their interests and needs. This strategy increased student motivation to learn, leading to a more enjoyable and fulfilling learning experience. The positive outcome was evident in student feedback, some of which are included below as examples:

“The instructor distributes a survey that assesses the general knowledge of her incoming students as well as gets information about the expectations the students have for the course. Based on the results, the instructor will then tailor the course to better suit the needs/desires of the student to ensure that the material the student is supposed to gain from the course is achieved. As a student myself, I greatly appreciate when professors do things such as these. It makes the student feel more respected and thus sets a good precedent on how seriously the student will take the course. This instructor wants to ensure that her students have the best experience in her class and can learn in the best way that fits them.”

“The slides and information were updated for us to keep it relevant rather than simply reuse the slides from past years.”

“This class was the first one I have had where I actually saw the professor make changes to their teaching style as a direct result of student comments—and I found the changes she made to be considerate and helpful.”

“We observed significant adaptability on the part of the instructor in response to the diverse and expansive knowledge needs of the students. This approach fostered a supportive and collaborative learning environment”.

As an instructor, the customization of course content increased satisfaction, helped build better connections with students, and provided perspective on the current needs of the “Gen Z” population. As a result, the instructor observed a noticeable improvement in student engagement, with class discussions becoming more dynamic and interactive. Additionally, tailoring the content to students’ needs allowed the incorporation of diverse perspectives and resources into the course structure, enriching the learning experience for all students and the instructor. To enhance the outcome of the course customization approach in other courses, it will be beneficial to enhance communication with the class upfront to describe the importance and relevance of their feedback on the SPLG form. This is because, based on the instructor’s experience, the success of this approach depends largely on the honest and thoughtful responses of the students. Further, when students are better informed about the purpose of any assigned task, they are more likely to complete the task effectively.¹⁰

Though customizing college course content based on student feedback can be a beneficial practice,^1,9 there are some caveats to consider. While student feedback is valuable, students may not always have the expertise or understanding necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of course content. When needed, the student input may be considered with input from faculty. In the course customization approach, to implement changes based on student feedback, the instructor may be required to develop new lectures and adapt others, which involve significant time commitment. Additionally, it is important to note that the continued assessment and feedback from students or peers is essential to determine whether the changes are achieving the desired outcomes and to make further adjustments as needed. Finally, while student satisfaction is important, it should not be the sole focus of customization efforts. The primary goal should be to enhance student learning and academic achievement. Sometimes, students may express preferences that do not necessarily align with their educational needs. Over-customizing course content based on individual feedback may lead to a fragmented curriculum that lacks coherence and depth.⁵ It is essential to consider broader educational goals and student learning objectives for the course when making customization decisions. Changes made based on student feedback should be evaluated for the long-term impact on student learning and development. Some adjustments may have immediate benefits but could potentially hinder students’ ability to succeed in more advanced courses or their future careers. It is important to recognize that course customization based on student feedback must align with the student learning objectives for the course. It is crucial to ensure that any changes made to the content or instructional delivery support the intended outcomes and goals of the course. Such clear alignment ensures that students receive a cohesive and focused learning experience, where each component of the curriculum contributes meaningfully to their overall understanding and skill development.

Discussion of Potential for Adoption in Other Courses

The described instructional strategy has the potential to be highly effective in a variety of course contexts and disciplines, particularly those with smaller class sizes (≤ 40 students) where individualized attention is feasible. The SPLG form and pre-course test can be employed by other instructors to customize the learning experience in the following ways:

1. Know your class: Use the SPLG form to get to know your students, their personal, academic, and professional backgrounds; career goals; and expectations from the course.
2. Assess the class’s learning goals: Use the SPLG form and pre-course test to find out what the students know and what they want to know upon course completion.
3. Review course structure: Based on the above two items, review the course structure and assignments to ensure that they align with students’ needs, course expectations, and learning goals.
4. Reevaluate content resources: Build flexibility into course content that allows one to modify resources from which they adapt the course content to meet student needs.
5. Customize and personalize assignments and projects: Students will proactively work on projects that are meaningful to them in their research program, profession, or other areas of life. Thus, instructors may finalize assignments and projects in consultation with students. For example, in a Crop Science course, for an assignment to submit a literature review on the growth and developmental events of a particular crop, one may let the students choose the crop. In that way, students may choose a crop that they want to know more about.
6. Explain the adjustments: Make the students aware of the adjustments being made to the course to meet their needs. This will help them appreciate efforts as well as empower their participation.
7. Reward participation: Students may participate more in the activities tailored to their interests. Reward their input and contributions through class participation points that will be part of the final course grade.

The instructional strategy of course customization holds promise for adaptation across diverse courses and disciplines, particularly those with smaller class sizes conducive to personalized attention. By implementing the SPLG form and pre-course test, instructors can tailor the learning experience to individual student needs and aspirations. Key steps include understanding student backgrounds and goals, aligning course structure and assignments accordingly, and maintaining flexibility in content resources. Moreover, transparent communication and recognition of student input foster a collaborative learning environment that enhances engagement and academic success.

References Cited

1. Wilson DD. Applying mass customization concepts to core courses: Increasing student-centered customization and enabling cross-functional integration. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2011 Jan;9(1):81–99.
2. Brown R, Clark J, Tewari R. We need to talk about curriculum innovation. Applied Economics Teaching Resources. 2024 Jan;6(1):1–13.
3. Rippel M, Panchal JH, Schaefer D, Mistree F. Fostering collaborative learning and educational mass customization in a graduate level engineering design course. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2009 Feb;25(4):729–744.
4. Lennon S. What I really want from this course is…:Tailoring learning to meet students’ needs, using pedagogies of connection and engagement. In: Rowan L, Grootenboer P, editors. Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education. 1^st ed. London (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. p. 87–103.
5. Romine WL, Banerjee T. Customization of curriculum materials in science: Motives, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2012 Jan;21:38–45.
6. Sankaran S, Sankaran K. Improving online course performance through customization: An empirical study using business analytics. International Journal of Business Analytics. 2016 Oct;3(4):1–20.
7. Wiggins GP, McTighe J. Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2005; 370 pp.
8. Bart M. Nine ways to customize learning experiences. Faculty Focus. 2010 Aug 16. Available at: https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/course-design-ideas/nine-ways-to-customize-learning-experiences/
9. Mustafa M, Naidu VR, Mohammed QA, Jesrani KA, Hasan R, Al Hadrami G. A customized framework to enhance students’ engagement in collaborative learning space in higher education. Proceedings of INTCESS 2019- 6th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences. 2019 Feb;1042–1050.
10. Bolkan S, Goodboy AK, Kelsey DM. Instructor clarity and student motivation: Academic performance as a product of students’ ability and motivation to process instructional material. Communication Education. 2015 Oct; 65(2):129–148.

Appendix

Pre-course test administered in Spring 2024 for PES 4220/6220 (Major World Crops).

Pre-course Test
PES 4220/6220
Major World Crops

[Each question carries 1 point]

Indicate whether the following statements (1–21) are true or false.

1. Most wheat cultivated in the United States are
   hybrid wheat.
2. Rice is a short-day plant.
3. Non-GM rice is rich in Vitamin A.
4. The United States is the number 1 rice producer in the world.
5. Corn is a predominantly self-pollinated crop.
6. Most of the corn grown in the United States are of the flint type.
7. Young leaves of sorghum contain a cyanogenic glucoside called dhurrin.
8. Sorghum is more susceptible to drought than corn.
9. A soybean variety of maturity group V matures earlier than a variety of maturity group II.
10. Soybean is capable of symbiotic nitrogen fixation.
11. The separation of cotton fibers from the seeds is called ginning.
12. Potato is a root crop.
13. Cassava is a stem tuber.
14. Cassava is a perennial plant.
15. Cassava is propagated through stem cuttings.
16. Cowpea is grown as a food crop as well as a cover crop.
17. Transplanted tobacco seedlings are generally used to establish tobacco fields.
18. Chickpea is used as a food crop in many parts of the world.
19. Pearl millet is inferior to corn and sorghum in feed
    value.
20. Hummus is made primarily from mashed chickpeas.
21. 80% of the peanuts grown in the United States are of Valencia type.
22. Identify the transgenic rice(s) from the following (green revolution rice, green super rice, golden rice, new plant type rice, C4 rice).
23. ………………… is the most important natural fiber in the world for textile manufacture.
24. ………………… is the main feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States.
25. Identify the following crops.

Pre-test crops section. Image credit: collage by author.