Month: November 2018

So, again, and without providing references to the large literature on the topic, I will try to make the case and identify the historical model I think is most relevant to individualization via technology.

My model of instruction (I think it is important to be aware of both models of instruction and models of learning) is most easily communicated using a four-step process identified by scholars Steve Alessi and Stan Trollip. The four steps involve (I have included a couple of additional discriptors I think help with description:

1. Exposure to information or experiences
2. Guidance
3. Extended practice / study
4. Evaluation / feedback

Following these steps does not guarantee learning, but the steps do identify the various external activities that instructional designers believe offer the most logical and productive approach.

In my thinking, an understanding of these steps must also acknowledge the reality of class and teacher time both of which are limited. For example, one use of technology – the flipped classroom – is an attempt to free up time for steps 2-4 by providing exposure to information through the assignment of instructional video to be viewed outside of class time. Of course, what is assumed is that students will make the commitment to prepare for their interactive time with peers and the teacher.

The mastery model I believe offers the best historical structure for the use of technology is Keller’s PSI (yes, 1968). PSI stands for the personalized system of instruction. Please note Keller focused on how to offer a practical approach to personalization. Keller proposed that presentations were not the most effective or efficient way to expose learners to content (again, the similarity should be obvious). He argued that exposure to information should be based on reading which is a way to describe behavior associated with a technology – the book. He argued that reading provided two advantages over educator presentations. It was personalized in the readers could control the speed at which they would engage with new information. They could reread if they knew they did not understand and this was not really what happened with face to face presentations. In addition, he argued that all readers did not have to be reading the same content at the same time. Why select a common assignment for all when some would understand quickly and some more slowly as a function of background knowledge and aptitude.

Rather than use the technology to avoid human contact, Keller argued that human contact should be provided in a way that concentrated on other aspects of the instructional process. He focused on the use of tutors who would respond to individual questions, administer the assessments, and provide feedback and what some might call remediation. Learners had more and not less time working directly with a more knowledgeable individual.

Mastery strategies as proposed by Keller and Bloom (a more group-based approach to mastery) did kind of fade away. This was not because the research did not demonstrate the value of these strategies, but I believe because it was too complicated for most educators to implement. This is what I think technology changes. Approaches such as the Kahn Academy and I think the approach criticized in the Post article personalize the presentation and the assessment phases of the instructional model. The key is not to eliminate the involvement of the teacher and other more knowledgeable individuals. Use their time to focus on direct involvement with students. In comparison to a textbook, new technologies also provide a specific record of the issues that individual students are struggling with allowing a more efficient focus for teacher assistance.

Should this approach be used in all areas? This would not make sense to me. I think personalization of time to learn offers value on a sliding scale. It is most important when the skills/knowledge being taught are most essential and sequential. Greater existing knowledge is always a benefit to learning, but specific existing knowledge is essential in some areas. Math probably makes the best example. Other skills might be better served by approaches that involve more peer interaction because learning to interact is part of what is to be learned.

Instruction does not have to be inflexible.

NPR just published a post on personalization in education. I encourage your reading of this presentation as it covers some territory I have not seen examined in most current coverage of this topic. The piece begins with a focus on mastery learning which has long been a topic that has interested me. I first published on mastery learning in 1978. The NPR post focuses on the technology-enabled forms of mastery learning using the Kahn Academy as an example and does a reasonable job of explaining what the Kahn Academy makes available to K12 students and the support for this effort by wealthy technology donors.

The article then turns to the critics of Kahn and the idea of understanding personalization as attempting to adjust to differences in the time required to learn. The alternative view of personalization as I would describe what is presented in this article is “learning what you want”. I say “alternative view” as I see these goals on different dimensions rather than as education should be one way or the other. Some might describe my perspective as that of blended learning – educational models exist that personalize both opportunities to learn at different rates (mastery learning) and to explore topics of personal interest (20% time project).

Anyway, in the either/or presentation of the NPR piece, there are several perspectives offered by educational thinkers and classroom educators. Here is a statement provided by one of the educators.

“It works really well, like, the first month,” Finn says. Then, students started to progress at different speeds.

“So I have the kids who are on pace, and I have the kids who are perpetually, always behind. And it got to the point where I had 20 kids in 20 spots.”

This point offered as the source of difficulty in using a mastery approach by a classroom teacher captures the challenge, but also the opportunity of a mastery approach. I would suggest that these 20 kids would be at 20 different spots whether exposed to a mastery approach or not. It is the teacher who would be at one spot in a traditional approach. Student achievement varies greatly and this variability increases year by year. To treat everyone as if they were at the same point limits the opportunities of those who could go faster and frustrates the students who can’t keep up. Worse, moving on when many do not understand or are unable to perform the expected skills often increases the difficulty of these students going forward. The way human motivation works, we tend to give up at some point.

The Kahn approach might come across in the NPR description as 20 kids working in a computer lab for hour after hour. One might ask where is the teacher and what is he/she doing. I have read most things available on Kahn Academy and I would suggest that this is hardly the approach that is encouraged. This environment allows the educator to monitor where different students are at and to recognize precisely which students are stuck trying to deal with a given concept or skill. I suppose the teacher could ignore the student’s plight, but I would think this situation would also allow the teacher to work 1:1 as a tutor. The reality of the 20 student classroom the anti-Kahn educator describes provides limited opportunity for tutoring as educators would be spending their time presenting and assessing.

What I am proposing is that ideas such as mastery learning not be understood in some unnecessarily extreme form. There are variants of mastery approaches applied in many settings and several have been investigated multiple times by researchers. Technology offers opportunities to address several of the challenges that limited the practicality of these previous humans-only implementations. Understanding the role of technology and educator should be the goal not painting a picture that pits one against the other.

I provide a more detailed explanation of mastery learning as part of a different source.