In this post, I wanted to reflect on some of this block’s readings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Empowering learners with personalised learning approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics – Tsai, Y-S. Perrotta, C. & Ga\u0161evi\u0107, D.\u00a0(2020)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em> to learn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Personalized Learning: The Conversations We\u2019re Not Having.\u00a0Data & Society working paper<\/em> – Bulger, M. (2016).<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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)<\/em>. This is an experience I’m familiar with. These drill-and-practice-based systems that don’t respond to actual learning needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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). <\/em>I think the quote says it all!<\/p>\n\n\n\n