Individualized instruction as a subset of personalized learning

David Warlick muses on the distinction between individualized instruction and personalized learning, noting that the former is decreasing while the latter is increasing in popularity, according to Google Trends. As he summarizes:

Personalized learning, in essence, is a life-long practice, as it is for you and me, as we live and learn independent of teachers, textbooks, and learning standards.  Individualized instruction is more contained.

Part of me is tempted to wonder what a word-cloud analysis would reveal as the key differences between how the two phrases get used. Absent such an analysis, I would focus on the two dimensions highlighted by the words themselves: personalized vs. individualized, and learning vs. instruction. The latter distinction is quite straightforward, with instruction emphasizing what others do to the student and learning emphasizing what the student does to learn.

The former distinction highlights the learner as a person, not merely an individual. As articulated in my earlier post explaining personalized learning, the core of personalization is the role of the learner as an intelligent and social person making choices for herself and interacting with others in order to learn. I would thus add to Warlick’s matrix, under “student’s role,” an explicit expectation for the student to direct her own learning and collaborate with and challenge fellow learners in making sense of the world. Warlick already emphasizes the role of the teacher’s expertise in deciding how to craft the learning environment; here, under “teacher’s role,” I would also add the responsibility to create and guide learning experiences within social settings. This highlights the importance of how students learn from communicating and collaborating with each other in an environment that truly recognizes them as intelligent, interdependent people.

Alternate models for structuring learning interactions

Timothy Chester ponders the power of many-to-many peer networks in facilitating learning:

If there is to be a peer-based, many-to-many collaborative structure ensuring rigor and the mastery of learning outcomes, it must also be deemed authoritative and persuasive by participants. Some ways to ensure authority and persuasiveness might include the following:

  1. The teacher must drive the collaboration. While teachers engaged in many-to-many relationships with students are not the authoritative center of the collaboration, they are responsible for structuring the student experience and stewarding the learning processes that occur.
  2. The collaboration has to be bounded by a mutually agreed upon scope and charter. Compared to traditional one-to-many collaborations, many-to-many forms can appear chaotic or disorganized. In order to drive effective learning, many-to-many collaborations must operate within a set of boundaries – those things we might define as learning objectives, outcomes, standards, or rubrics. As steward of the learning process, the teacher must take responsibility for structuring the learning collaboration within a set of consistent and firm boundaries that include these structures.
  3. There must be incentives for full student participation. Critics of peer grading systems in MOOCs note that such interactions by students many times lack significant investment of time and focus – resulting in peer feedback that is spurious. Both the quality and the quantity of peer feedback within a many-to-many system have to be statistically significant in order to avoid such spuriousness.

There are many models of such networks in both formal and informal learning settings: peer review systems (e.g., Calibrated Peer Review, SWoRD peer review, Expertiza), tutoring and peer learning communities (e.g., Grockit, P2PU, Khan Academy, OpenStudy), Q&A / discussion boards (e.g., StackOverflow), online communities (e.g., DIY, Ravelry), and wikis. The challenge for formal learning environments is to foster and nurture the kind of authentic, meaningful social interactions that emerge from sustained interaction within informal communities, in the context of the top-down and often short-lived peer experiences typically associated with school classes. Yet for personalized learning to succeed on a large scale, it needs to solve this problem effectively, so that learners are not isolated but can benefit from each other’s presence, support, errors, and wisdom.

Standardized tests as market distortions

Some historical context on how standardized tests have affected the elite points out how gatekeepers can magnify the influence of certain factors over others– whether through chance or through bias:

In 1947, the three significant testing organizations, the College Entrance Examination Board, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the American Council on Education, merged their testing divisions into the Educational Testing Service, which was headed by former Harvard Dean Henry Chauncey.

Chauncey was greatly affected by a 1948 Scientific Monthly article, “The Measurement of Mental Systems (Can Intelligence Be Measured?)” by W. Allison Davis and Robert J. Havighurst, which called intelligence tests nothing more than a scientific way to give preference to children from middle- and upper-middle-class families. The article challenged Chauncey’s belief that by expanding standardized tests of mental ability and knowledge America’s colleges would become the vanguard of a new meritocracy of intellect, ability and ambition, and not finishing schools for the privileged.

The authors, and others, challenged that the tests were biased. Challenges aside, the proponents of widespread standardized testing were instrumental in the process of who crossed the American economic divide, as college graduates became the country’s economic winners in the postwar era.

As Nicholas Lemann wrote in his book “The Big Test,” “The machinery that (Harvard President James) Conant and Chauncey and their allies created is today so familiar and all-encompassing that its seems almost like a natural phenomenon, or at least an organism that evolved spontaneously in response to conditions. … It’s not.”

As a New Mexico elementary teacher and blogger explains:

My point is that test scores have a lot of IMPACT because of the graduation requirements, even if they don’t always have a lot of VALUE as a measure of growth.

Instead of grade inflation, we have testing-influence inflation, where the impact of certain tests is magnified beyond that of other assessment metrics. It becomes a kind of market distortion in the economics of test scores, where some measurements are more visible and assume more value than others, inviting cheating and “gaming the system“.

We can restore openness and transparency to the system by collecting continuous assessment data that assign more equal weight across a wider range of testing experiences, removing incentives to cheat or “teach to the test”. Adaptive and personalized assessment go further in alleviating pressures to cheat, by reducing the inflated number of competitors against whom one may be compared. Assessment can then return to fulfilling its intended role of providing useful information on what a student has learned, thereby yielding better measures of growth and becoming more honestly meritocratic.

Distinguishing MOOCs from OER

Stanford mathematics professor Keith Devlin suggests that we should drop MOOCs and focus on MOORs (massively open online resources) or OERs (open educational resources):

no single MOOC should see itself as the primary educational resource for a particular learning topic. Rather, those of us currently engaged in developing and offering MOOCs are, surely, creating resources that will be part of a vast smorgasbord from which people will pick and choose what they want or need at any particular time.

Yet even if current MOOCs follow a mediocre model for structuring learning experiences, they do still attempt to meet a need for learners who seek guidance, structure, and social cohorting for the way they access educational resources. I would be interested in decoupling OERs from MOOCs and similar pathways, in order to broaden the scope of available OERs from which anyone can choose. That opens up possibilities for more innovative approaches to enabling diverse learning paths and cohorting models.