Thoughts on…personalisation
In this post, I wanted to reflect on some of this block’s readings.
Empowering learners with personalised learning approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics – Tsai, Y-S. Perrotta, C. & Gašević, D. (2020)
It was interesting to read this from a primary education perspective, as this paper focuses more on higher education. There were some interesting differences between the student and teacher’s responses regarding the use of learning analytics. Two main themes I took from this were concerns surrounding student agency and issues related to data collection and use of that data. From a primary perspective, I would argue that our students lack the necessary skills to interpret and make sense of ‘personalised’ data to support their learning journey. Putting aside the argument around the reliability of learning analytics, our students are still learning how to learn.
Personalized Learning: The Conversations We’re Not Having. Data & Society working paper – Bulger, M. (2016).
Bulger’s critique of personalised learning resonated with me. I can reflect on my current and past experiences utilising so-called personalised learning systems, particularly for intervention. ‘Responsive systems are more limited, essentially offering an interface to pre-determined content, like a hyper-linked menu or series of digital buttons’ (Bulger, pg. 5). This is an experience I’m familiar with. These drill-and-practice-based systems that don’t respond to actual learning needs.
However, the following quote also stuck, ‘How does a personalised learning system measure and predict success when there is no conceptual agreement among those responsible for schooling?’ (Bulger, pg. 21). I think the quote says it all!
The quantified self for learning: critical questions for education, Learning, Media and Technology, 40:4, 407-411, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2015.1100797 – Eynon, R. (2015)
Eynon tries to balance the affordances of personalised learning and the challenge of achieving this. While ‘quantified self approaches’ may provide opportunities to reflect on our learning, identify learning behaviours and provide immediate feedback, it may come at a cost. There are far too many questions about the practical approaches to collecting and analysing data securely, without bias and in measurable ways. Echoing the concerns raised by Tsai, Y-S. Perrotta, C. & Gašević, D. (2020), do students simply become number crunchers? Does the emphasis shift from improving and developing how we learn to improving and developing our data sets?
These are great reflections Craig. I like the way that you related the Tsai, Perrotta and Gašević paper to your own experience in primary school. It made me think of star charts or similar graphical ways of recording and rewarding children’s activities. Do you think they work to encourage “good behaviour”?
‘How does a personalised learning system measure and predict success when there is no conceptual agreement among those responsible for schooling?’ (Bulger, pg. 21). I think the quote says it all!
I agree this is a really important point. Bulger seems to be talking about predicting success in the absence of an agreed outcome or ideal model of success. In school, success in statutory tests or high-stakes exams are usually the desired outcomes. Could personalised learning systems be more beneficial here?
I would argue that some graphical forms of rewarding positive behaviour are still popular and can be successful. This is especially true when supporting students with additional support needs. In my context, we use House Points to celebrate achievement – academically and pastorally, and for most children, it has a positive impact.
In our international school setting, we don’t have the same assessment framework as schools in the UK. We, therefore, don’t have much in the way of high-stakes testing like SATS in Years 2 and 6. I wonder if this would allow for more opportunities for personalised learning? There’s a nice call-back to some reading in our IDEL module from Facer, K. and Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital technology and the futures of education – towards ‘non-stupid’ optimism, where it mentions how digital technologies could increase the disparity in education provision.