“The aim of personalised learning is to tailor the education system to meet the individual needs, interests, and abilities of each student.” Sounds great. Something all teachers would support. How does it work? Will Brodie finds out.
“Technology and data analysis identify strengths and weaknesses, adapt teaching methods, and provide customised resources and feedback to students. The aim is to enhance student engagement, motivation, and achievement by offering a unique learning experience to each student.”
Okay.
But does personalised learning (PL) work?
Maya Gunawardena, Assistant Professor, University of Canberra, says PL “makes sense”.
But it is not a “magic wand” and “we need to think carefully about how it is rolled out”.
She described PL as a “paradigm shift” for many schools, teachers, parents, and communities accustomed to “mass education”.
For it to succeed, overtaxed teachers would need to be assured it wouldn’t lead to more work and wary parents would have to be convinced about the potential benefits for their children.
Others believe unless PL is examined more closely, it will create perverse outcomes.
Alan Reid, Professor Emeritus of Education, University of South Australia, told The Conversation that PL can mean a flexible approach which starts with each student’s individual strengths and capabilities, and encourages a wide range of learning activities.
Or it can be used to justify a “program of rigid and scripted individual learning progressions”.
Reid fears the “direct instruction” model developed in the US in the 1960s, a “tightly scripted, step-by-step approach that follows a predetermined sequence through packaged resource materials”.
Tests align to behavioural goals, leading to an “inevitable reliance on the use of online resources”, and a “hyper-rational approach to curriculum and pedagogy that limits students’ agency, narrows what they can learn in school, and limits schools’ ability to respond effectively to a diverse student body”.
In Reid’s worst-case scenario the only winners are private technology companies which track students and devise their learning programs. Individual students become “automatons” moving through standardised progression levels.
“Creativity and critical thinking are stifled as students are steered down an already determined path. And teachers are increasingly excluded from the process, as planning and decision-making is done by algorithms.
“The result is a narrow and highly individualised learning experience that is unlikely to prepare students adequately for the challenges of the 21st century.”
Investing in high-tech education
Forbes journalist Natalie Wexler points out that the data on PL was “inconclusive at best”.
“The most encouraging study to date found that PL had a modest positive effect on math test scores and no significant impact on scores in reading. But other studies have found that some personalised learning programs can reduce students’ enjoyment of learning or make them less likely to feel there’s an adult at their school who knows them well.”
Wexler pointed out that kids don’t necessarily want to do what algorithms want them to; teachers feared PL was a ploy to reduce their numbers in schools; children would choose the path of least resistance if not pushed; and parents were worried about misuse of their children’s data.
And if everyone learns something different, students lose much of the essence of the school experience, “the opportunity for group discussion, the excitement of bouncing ideas off of fellow students, and the guidance that a teacher ideally provides”.
Wexler concedes personalisation can play a “valuable role in some aspects of education”. She says PL could work for math “where a defined set of skills need to be practiced”.
“But it’s only a delivery system. The real question is what is being delivered.”
Instructional designer Caroline Focke, writing for ADInstruments, a company which creates tools for life science research and education, says it’s understandable that schools look for alternatives to the “one size fits all” approach.
“For example, one student might excel at math but has difficultylearning new languages as theyprefer to learn visually. While another student might be the opposite. Different approaches are required to best support both students’ learning. This is what PL aims to do; provide the best possible educational journey for each student.”
She says technology can provide each student with individual learning material based on their “knowledge gaps, learning pace and preferences”. Educators can better track students’ progress.
She believes PL can potentially lead to higher student retention “because every student is supported on his/her level and therefore won’t feel overwhelmed”.
“Learning will be more inclusive for students with language barriers and disabilities. A more flexible teaching environment makes it easier to adapt to students’ busy lives and other commitments.”
However, Focke is also wary about PL, saying it “might lead to less social interaction and subsequent behavioural issues”.
It could also widen inequality if its technology is not available to all students.
“Currently, there is little evidence that personalised learning actually increases students’ success rates. There is a lot of potential for AI to be an aide for teachers to enable them to focus more on supporting students, however, we are not at a stage of completely self-guided learning yet.”