Teacher-driven personalisation can be challenging to facilitate, especially in large heterogeneous classes and during demanding courses. Because of the growing digitalisation, more possibilities arise towards technology-driven personalisation. Nonetheless, little is known about how teachers interact with or implement digital personalised learning (DPL) tools in the classroom. This study explores two research questions: (RQ1) what personalisation strategies are enacted by teachers while implementing a DPL-tool for programming? and (RQ2) how does the teacher–technology interaction take shape? A qualitative multiple case study was established, comprising four cases (two pairs of co-teachers and two teachers who teach individually) implementing a DPL-track for programming in first grade of secondary education (12-to-14-year-old students). Within-case and cross-case analyses of interviews and observations revealed that, although the technology-driven personalisation remained unchanged over the cases, teachers used different personalisation strategies while enacting the DPL-track. Subsequently, various forms of the teacher–technology relationship were observed. Based on the findings, (1) a teacher–technology interaction continuum and (2) a new concept, i.e., ‘the teacher–technology nexus’, are presented as they can be of value for the elaboration of theory on the implementation of DPL-tools in real life classrooms.

Background: Simulation-based education is a well-established training technique in medical curricula, also for communication skills. Virtual reality (VR) technology can enhance this form of experience-based learning. How VR interacts with training communication skills for interpersonal and interprofessional medical encounters is, however, unclear. This study investigates how VR influences communication skills and behaviors in patient-student and team encounters in medical undergraduate simulations, in order to make recommendations for VR simulation-based communication skills training (CST). Methods: We conducted a study with 22 third-year medical students completing a dyadic VR simulation (Smart Collaboration Tutor software). We coded communication skills and behaviors for team and patient-student communication in videorecorded VR simulations. We then analyzed communication patterns and finally developed themes for VR-mediated CST. Results: Our findings revealed that students preferred the core communication skill of asking questions, informing, and thinking aloud as process communication skills in a VR simulation. Nonverbal and paraverbal behaviors were used with unclear intent. VR negatively impacted the focus of attention and flow of simulation-based communication skills training. Discussion: Dyadic VR simulations tend to emphasize team and task-oriented communication. Its value for patient-student and relation-oriented communication is unclear. VR influenced conversational turn-taking by altering visual and auditory perceptions. Cognitive load was enhanced, potentially diverting attention from communication goals and observational focus. Conclusion: Multiuser VR simulation shows certain possibilities for CST in medical undergraduate simulations. Recommendations on the contextual design of VR simulations, however, need to be taken into account to safeguard the focus of attention and flow of CST.