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.

What should we assess?

Some thoughts on what tests should measure, from Justin Minkel:

Harvard education scholar Tony Wagner was quoted in a recent op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman on what we should be measuring instead: “Because knowledge is available on every Internet-connected device, what you know matters far less than what you can do with what you know. The capacity to innovate—the ability to solve problems creatively or bring new possibilities to life—and skills like critical thinking, communication and collaboration are far more important than academic knowledge.”

Can we measure these things that matter? I think we can. It’s harder to measure critical thinking and innovation than it is to measure basic skills. Harder but not impossible.

His suggestions:

For starters, we need to make sure that tests students take meets [sic] three basic criteria:

1. They must measure individual student growth.

2. Questions must be differentiated, so the test captures what students below and above grade-level know and still need to learn.

3. The tests must measures [sic] what matters: critical thinking, ingenuity, collaboration, and real-world problem-solving.

Measuring individual growth and providing differentiated questions are obvious design goals for personalized assessment. The third remains a challenge for assessment design all around.