Before we can assess how well it is working and what changes, if
any, need to be made, we have to know what it is. In this case, the “it” is
personalized learning and personalized learning has caused educator quite a bit
of agita over the years.
In October 2014, Sean Cavanaugh of Education Week attempted to provide some discernment in his article
“What is ‘Personalized Learning’? Educators Seek
Clarity.” For many, technology provides the fulcrum for personalized
learning. Eliot Soloway was quoted as saying “Many
technology-based approaches to personalized learning amount to nothing more
than tailoring or personalizing the reading of texts to students of different
abilities—rather than personalizing a mix of activities that give students a
richer and more meaningful educational experience.”
Teachers are often asking about different reading levels or lexile
levels. As Soloway notes, they want different kinds of texts for different
reading abilities. Teachers seem to conflate differentiation with
personalization but that may also be because personalization seems too
daunting. So rather than ask what personalized learning is, perhaps the better
question is “What is personalized learning supposed to be?”, or, even better, “What
could personalized learning be for students and their learning?”.
In 2017, Audrey Watters, she of Hack Education who likes to rattle
comfortable ways of thinking, presented at an OEB
Midsummit in Iceland and said, among other things, “But I contend
you cannot analyze digital technologies and the business and politics of
networks and computers without discussing how deeply embedded they are in what
I’ve called the “Silicon Valley narrative” and in what others have labeled the
“California ideology” – and that’s an ideology that draws heavily on radical
individualism and on libertarianism.”
She has a point. Let’s look at who is investing millions of
dollars into personalized learning: Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Why? Well,
because they can, of course. The more suspicious of us would see marketing
opportunities behind the alleged philanthropy. On the other hand, we know that
online organizations want access to a lot of our information and they already
gather beaucoup amounts of information through every transaction and every
click online. Why? In theory so they personalize
the ads we’re shown. And they do. It’s eerie, and a trifle annoying. (“Stop showing
me ads for stuff I’ve already bought!” I tend to shout at my laptop, when I
actually pay attention to the ads, which I rarely do.) Anyway, we can see the
direction in which personalization is heading and has been heading, since back
in the day when Burger King first started telling us in 1974
that we could have it our way.
Cavanaugh reported that Andrew Calkins, then deputy director of
the Next Generation Learning Challenges, asserted that “[t]rue personalized
learning calls for a ‘rethinking and redesign’ of schools, which could require
them to overhaul classroom structures and schedules, curricula, and the
instructional approaches of teachers.” We all know the on-going argument that
teachers’ roles much change so they are “more like those of coaches or
facilitators than ‘content providers.’” We also know the practical complexities
of that model, especially for younger grades.
What we do know is that software is only one component of
providing students with a possible pathway for personalized learning. But there
is more to consider.
We also know that teachers and administrators still struggle to
understand what personalized learning is or can be. Too many think it requires
individualized lesson plans or requires 1:1 access for students. Kenya Ransey
observes that ‘[l]earning is the primary focus, and technology can be along for
the ride—or not. What does it look like when technology is not at the center of
a personalized learning experience?” She also asserts that “it’s
critical that we realize that once we all consolidate around a standardized
definition, it will no longer be personal.” I’m not sure I agree with
that, but I’m not yet sure why.
There are certainly plenty of educators who are not fans of
personalized learning. Most of that resistance seems to be based on a lack of understanding
of what it is and can be; that is, a lack of a concrete definition and clarity
of expected outcomes. However, plenty of educators echo Audrey Watters’ concern
that it’s simply an opportunity for large organizations to gather information
about users for their own capitalistic purposes. Well, there is that and, let’s
face it, every edtech organization wants to gather data on students for a range
of reasons.
Robyn Howton is one of those teachers who crashed and burned a few
times on her way to implementing personalized learning in her classroom. She did
research, tried and failed a few times, made adjustments, and kept going. In
her ISTE article, she refers to the Rodel Teacher Council Blueprint
for Personalized Learning in Delaware as a resource. At the time she
worked without 1:1 in her classrooms and realized that she made some errant
choices about which technology to use when. Howton had some great a-ha moments
when she analyzed her lessons and realized when and how she might have used
technology more effectively which helped her determine which tools to use. (She
refers to some great tools, too!)
One of Howton’s most important lessons was to give her students
choice: “Class often starts with a mini-lesson,
which then flows into students making choices about what they need to do next
to meet specific learning targets aligned to the standards.
Writing for the Christensen Institute, Elizabeth
Anthony notes “the magic of blended learning lies in the instructor’s ability
to leverage technology to personalize learning rather than the mere use of
certain software programs. A classroom can incorporate technology without
actually changing the classroom model and the way students learn.”
What is interesting to me is how often blended learning is mentioned
in connection with personalized learning and how occasionally there is
reference to competency-based learning in conjunction with personalized
learning. We have a lot of trends in education and that causes much of the confusion.
Can you implement personalized learning without blended learning? Is
competency-based learning an option in personalized learning? Should we be
implementing competency-based learning instead of personalized learning?
But wait. This is about personalized
learning and trying to figure out what that is and what it means. I don’t mean
to oversimplify but I think Robyn Howton found an important key: student
choice. Every teacher has objectives or learning outcomes for every lesson. The
question to be asked is whether or not students have to demonstrate their
learning in the same exact way and if they have to follow the same exact path
to get there? If not, students have choice.
I think another challenge is that teachers think personalized
learning, like blended learning, needs to be something they do every day for
every lesson. That doesn’t make sense. Younger students won’t have the learning
tools yet and some high school students may lack the maturity to make good
decisions. And not every teacher can implement personalized learning in the exact
same way every year. In fact, for middle and high school teachers, they may not
implement personalized learning in the exact same way in every class.
I also think personalized learning is an aspiration for some
teachers and they cannot be expected to make that transition overnight. That’s
one of the reasons I appreciate Howton’s article and her reflection on her
transition to blended and personalized learning. In fact, I think she offers
something of a template for teachers interested in trying to implement personalized
learning in their classrooms.
Teachers should start small, with one lesson. It’s not just teachers
who have to learn how to conduct a class using personalized learning. Students
will need to be taught to think differently about their learning and trust that
it’s okay for them to have choice.
No one should expect dramatic changes overnight. It will take time
and patience. And it will have to be okay to blow it every now and then, and
then learn from the experience and what students can report from their
perspectives. After all, it is about the students and their learning and what
makes the most sense for them to be successful.
References
Cavanaugh, Sean. (2014). What is “Personalized Learning”? Educators
Seek Clarity. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09pl-overview.h34.html?r=2043444587
Christensen Institute (2018). Squaring Personalization and
Digitization in 2018. https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/squaring-personalization-digitization-2018/.
Guest blogger Elizabeth Anthony.
Herald, Benjamin. (2017). The Case(s) Against Personalized
Learning. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/11/08/the-cases-against-personalized-learning.html
Howton, Robyn. (2017). Turn Your Classroom into a Personalized Learning
Environment. https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=416
Personalized learning infographic. https://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/personalized-learning-special-report-2014/a-working-definition.html
Ransey, Kenya. (2017). What personalized learning is not. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-09-01-what-personalized-learning-is-not
Watters, Audrey. (2017). The Histories of Personalized Learning. http://hackeducation.com/2017/06/09/personalization
