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:
- Exposure to information or experiences
- Guidance
- Extended practice / study
- 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.
