Exploring Personalized Learning
This is a pre-reading and studying post. Perhaps my blueprint for action research in an area that I find to be fascinating, exciting, and elusive all at the same time. Personalized learning.
To me, personalized learning experiences are exciting because of how quickly and completely they engage the student. Content is devoured. Time flies. Fun and Joy blaze into the classroom. Flow!
But then I’m faced with that “C” word. Curriculum. The “must knows.” The final exam that pretty much every human resource department head asks us for. (If you’re inside a school system, then replace that last bit with school board or district or principal etc.)
We live in a programed world don’t we? We grew up in and under the big C and we’ve been trained to reproduce it and expect it in all other “learning” experiences/environments we encounter.
My questions around curriculum largely remain the same: Is Curriculum bad? It’s push technology. It’s a broadcast that all of our students must tune into, or face failure. It’s a broadcast that teachers have to transmit, or they too shall fail. Is that kind of setup incorrect? Have our times changed so much that “the way it’s always been” no longer applies?
I’m thinking that the answer to that question is yes, but I have no idea what it really means. I admit to being in a state of ignorance around an updated educational model, where the power of personal is released.
So I embark on an exploration. Over the next few posts I would like to learn more about Personalized Learning. I have some towering questions that I would like to echo and ask. This post from Stephen Downes really helps frame my questions:Stephen’s Web ~ by Stephen Downes ~ Personalisation and Digital Technologies
“The logic of education systems should be reversed so that the system conforms to the learner, rather than the learner to the system. This is the essence of personalisation. It demands a system capable of offering bespoke support for each individual in order to foster engaged and independent learners able to reach their full potential.” Good stuff, and I support most of it, though I note (and this is a small criticism) that the authors can’t quite let go of the reins, as evidenced by their suggestion that students take merely “joint responsibility” for learning choices and able only to “co-design” their own curriculum. When two people - one with power, and one without - are sharing “joint responsibility” and “co-design,” the person without power is inevitably overruled by the person with power. Status quo.
1. How do you let go of those reigns?
2. Should their be reigns of any kind?
3. Shouldn’t there be some kind of…framework set out around what is to be covered in class? A curriculum that is, but isn’t at the same time? It’s hard for me to get my words around this one. I think J.M. over at Palimpsest redux really hits this one well: Curriculum as guide not a gavel.
4. How do you get co-design that is really equal? Should it be all student? If it is all student centered course design, what happens to society when these students graduate? Will we be failing to reach key and important learning targets that are required to live and work outside school? Will unleashing self-directed learners…those who learn in a “just-in-time” fashion be able to fit in to our world successfully?
Lots of questions, and exciting directions to explore. As always, the floor is happily yours!
Some very scattered thoughts.
Can you imagine a language without any rules? Without rules, communication could not take place. Similarly, without structure, learning cannot take place. The question is not whether there should be curriculum, but what form should it take to facilitate learning.
All ecologies have a variety of niches. I generally don’t think of niches as equal or not equal, but rather fitting a particular role. Why need we think of learning roles, including the teacher’s, as needing to be equal?
I think that more than the curriculum, it’s the relationships (and interactions) among students and between students and teacher that promotes learning. Relationships of respect, for example, would void some of the questions about co-designing and curriculum as gavel.
Comment by Charles — December 21, 2005 @ 12:40 pm
Hi Charles,
Thank you so much for your comments. I read them several times, and you know what? I still don’t feel like I fully understand what you’re wanting to tell me.
My first question for you is this: When you say structure and rules, what exactly do you mean? You said: “Without rules, communication could not take place. Similarly, without structure, learning cannot take place.”
I wonder if this is true. I’ve been writing on this blog now for a while and I’ve learned a great deal, but I follow zero structure. There is no curriculum telling me where to look or what to pay attention to. I think thoough that you were trying to say something more here…could you help me out?
I whole heartedly agree with your last statement: Learning is more than curriculum, it’s the relationships and interactions that count. I really agree with that idea. I think the more we connect with people and interact with them, the smarter our learning networks become. I know I’m more than I was a year ago simply because of the great people I’ve met online and off.
Looking forward to hearing more from you…and I am really enjoying your site as well!
Comment by Aaron Nelson — December 23, 2005 @ 7:50 pm