Gisteren vond ik via een tweet van Daniel Willingham de volgende bekentenis en vraag van Larry Berger, de CEO van Amplify over gepersonaliseerd leren:

Until a few years ago, I was a great believer in what might be called the “engineering” model of personalized learning, which is still what most people mean by personalized learning. The model works as follows:

You start with a map of all the things that kids need to learn.

Then you measure the kids so that you can place each kid on the map in just the spot where they know everything behind them, and in front of them is what they should learn next.

Then you assemble a vast library of learning objects and ask an algorithm to sort through it to find the optimal learning object for each kid at that particular moment.

Then you make each kid use the learning object.

Then you measure the kids again. If they have learned what you wanted them to learn, you move them to the next place on the map. If they didn’t learn it, you try something simpler.

If the map, the assessments, and the library were used by millions of kids, then the algorithms would get smarter and smarter, and make better, more personalized choices about which things to put in front of which kids.

I spent a decade believing in this model—the map, the measure, and the library, all powered by big data algorithms.

Here’s the problem: The map doesn’t exist, the measurement is impossible, and we have, collectively, built only 5% of the library.

To be more precise: The map exists for early reading and the quantitative parts of K-8 mathematics, and much promising work on personalized learning has been done in these areas; but the map doesn’t exist for reading comprehension, or writing, or for the more complex areas of mathematical reasoning, or for any area of science or social studies. We aren’t sure whether you should learn about proteins then genes then traits—or traits, then genes, then proteins.

We also don’t have the assessments to place kids with any precision on the map. The existing measures are not high enough resolution to detect the thing that a kid should learn tomorrow. Our current precision would be like Google Maps trying to steer you home tonight using a GPS system that knows only that your location correlates highly with either Maryland or Virginia.

We also don’t have the library of learning objects for the kinds of difficulties that kids often encounter. Most of the available learning objects are in books that only work if you have read the previous page. And they aren’t indexed in ways that algorithms understand.

Finally, as if it were not enough of a problem that this is a system whose parts don’t exist, there’s a more fundamental breakdown: Just because the algorithms want a kid to learn the next thing doesn’t mean that a real kid actually wants to learn that thing.

So we need to move beyond this engineering model. Once we do, we find that many more compelling and more realistic frontiers of personalized learning opening up.

Which brings me to the question that I hope might kick off your conversation: “What did your best teachers and coaches do for you—without the benefit of maps, algorithms, or data—to personalize your learning?”

There are many ways to answer to this question. Each might be a doorway to the future of personalized learning.

Reageer op dit artikel

3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Volgers
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
N. JanssenGuido EvertsMachiel Karels Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

nieuwste oudste meest gestemd
Abonneren op
N. Janssen
N. Janssen

The teachers I learned the most from, asked me the right questions. They asked me to make decisions and to explain them. They asked my opinion and to explain them. I think the basics of teaching are dialog and yhe right questions: what, why, who, when, how etc.

Guido Everts

Fijn verhaal. Met als door leerlingen en ex-leerlingen meest gegeven antwoord op de laatste vraag: het vertellen van verhalen door die en die leraar. Dat dit antwoord bijna een doorsnee-antwoord is heeft de gemoederen van de wetenschap niet mogen verhitten. Aan het vertellen van verhalen zijn geen metingen gedaan. Met als, neem ik aan, belangrijkste reden dat een verhaal vertellen niet ‘gepersonaliseerd’ is. Dat zal je dan toch eerst een keertje moeten onderzoeken!

Machiel Karels

Ja, de veronderstelling dat leren op een dergelijke manier te digitaliseren is, is een van de misverstanden rond gepersonaliseerd onderwijs. En zo circuleren er meer misverstanden over dit thema. Zie

Mooie afsluitende vraag inderdaad: wat deed jou beste leraar om het onderwijs voor jou te personaliseren?