The reading on personalisation has been interesting as it made me consider the concept from more angles. \u2018Personalisation and choice\u2019 is a phrase I often hear in the context of my work as it is a key principle of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), which the \u2018national courses\u2019 I work with are based on. I think Bulger (2016) captured my understanding of personalisation, from a work perspective, in the expression of a student-centred classroom. My role at work is related to assessment of the national courses rather than delivery, therefore I am not often involved in the broader pedagogy around how personalised or student-centred delivery translates into classroom activity. However, in the early days of implementation of new national courses there was interesting questions for us as an awarding body when considering national assessments covering potentially student-centred or classroom specific learning!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In allowing personalisation of content the focus for assessment aligns more easily with skills required to complete a task, if for example competency in a practical activity is being assessed such as a dance routine or the creation of a piece of woodwork. For courses with more knowledge-based content it becomes more challenging, especially where students have explored different contexts within a broad content area. Over time as CfE based national courses were reviewed additional content guidance was given to centres which allowed far greater ease of standardised testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I can see echoes of the desire to allow expressions of choice in relation to content personalisation in Edtech. This however made me wonder how performance is monitored where free expression of content choice is allowed. Are more inbuilt tests created at the outset for students taking different learning paths? Does student agency really empower the learner to choose their path, or do all paths lead the student back to where the learning platform was designed to end up, so all students end up with the same skill or knowledge level? Or as (Tsai et al. 2020) suggest does edtech allow personalisation which allows the student to reach their potential rather than merely reach the same level as their peers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consideration also needs to be given to the student being the centre of their own learning. Does this cause problems for students who are not mature enough to navigate their ways through the learning steps and keep their learning on track? Are the learning platforms designed to be engaging enough to counter act a dip in motivation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Setting aside the idea of the student-centred learning aspect of personalisation but still considering the classroom setting. One of the key benefits often highlighted by Edtech companies is the ability of learning platform to give much more detailed feedback on performance to teachers, and students\/parents. The impact of increased use of edtech could result in teachers being required to undertake additional training and\/or spend more time understanding, and best using, the data they are presented with. As alluded to by Tasi et al (2020) there are already concerns about heavy teacher workloads. One of the recommendations put forward by OECD recognises the growing need for time specifically for administrative classroom duties for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018curriculum planning, for monitoring of student achievement and in support of moderation of assessment outcomes\u2019. (OECD, 2020, p:13) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Would this potentially alleviate the situation? Perhaps more importantly would it take away from the role of the teacher in the classroom to be more of a tutor with the \u2018teaching\u2019 being assigned to Edtech?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/strong><\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bulger, M (2016), Personalised Learning: The Conversations We\u2019re Not Having. Data & Society working paper. Personalized Learning: The Conversations We’re Not Having (datasociety.net)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n