Tag: personalization

I have been a supporter of mastery learning since I first read Bloom, Keller, and others in the 1970s. There are many forms of personalization and mastery approaches are but one. Mastery attempts to deal with the issue of individual differences in existing knowledge and rate of learning. Its perspective on learner aptitude argues aptitude should be conceptualized as how long it takes to learn something rather than how much a student can learn in the time provided which is what traditional education requires. For those who could go faster (bored) and those who have been ignored as a class of students move on (left behind), a mastery approach proposes that instruction should address the present situation of each student.

When such ideas were proposed and demonstrated in the ’70s, I would argue that the means to deliver individualized approaches were impractical in most institutions. With technology, the opportunities for practical implementation have changed.

Personalization of student learning has been popularized in recent years. Like so many terms used in education, the meaning of personalization is ambiguous. Personalization could apply to mastery learning, but also to addressing student personal interests. I am an advocate of both concepts. Others are not. For many, student-centered implies student personal interests, but not differences in rate of learning and existing background. I guess the assumption is that somehow differences in learner aptitude and background are being met in traditional classrooms with traditional group-focused approaches. The reality argues otherwise. Many students simply have no realistic chance of dealing with the learning expectations they face.

I just read this commentary on the mastery version of personalization in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-messy-reality-of-personalized-learning). I also read some of the reactions from pundits who object to the use of technology in this way. I see this as a convoluted problem and I agree with many of the points identified in the New Yorker article. It has beens suggested that “you are doing it wrong” is too often used by tech advocates when addressing complaints about technology. I would use this argument here. If the teacher uses individualized “mastery learning time” to sit at his/her desk and fill out necessary forms or plan lessons for other class sessions, he/she is doing it wrong.

I like to think of mastery approaches as an adaptive textbook presenting content and experiences at the pace suited to the individual. The classroom teacher does not ignore the class just because a traditional textbook is in use and certainly should not ignore students when the computer or laptop is individualizing content and task presentations. The New Yorker article does a nice job of explaining how individualization has become confounded with private schooling and the funding priorities of tech companies. Again, teachers and administrators are not helpless. There are plenty of “free” individualization options available for classroom use (e.g., Kahn Academy) and there is no requirement that schools must take money from Apple, Google, or whatever company happens to be the scapegoat of the moment.

I admit to being frustrated by the lack of individualization in public schools. Your tech integration specialists/coaches/facilitators/etc. should be there to help.

I have written more about mastery approaches elsewhere.

Mastery learning is one of those themes I have returned to throughout my career. It always seemed a great idea, well supported in the research literature, but only made practical by the wide availability of technology. Mastery would be my priority way of thinking about personalization.

I first explored mastery learning supported by technology in the late 1970s. I was a graduate student in the Psychology program at Iowa State and with fellow student Mike Latta we began working with biology professor Warren Dolphin. I had been an undergraduate in biology and was already interested in mastery techniques. I recognized that what Dr. Dophin was doing in his introductory biology course was a version of mastery learning. Yes, this was long before the availability of personal computer-based technology. The large-lecture, introductory course including bi-weekly exams completed on the “fill in the dot” answer sheets scored by computer. The way the exams worked the sequences of questions (1-20, 21-40, 41-60, etc.) corresponded to course units. A student could take an exam over any unit covered to that point with the highest score for each unit counting toward the final course grade. The technology made this system practical as multiple scores with hundreds of students were collected every other week. 

Latta, R. M., Dolphin, W. D., & Grabe, M. (1978). Individual differences model applied to instruction and evaluation of large college classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(6), 960-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.6.960

Mastery learning remained a personal interest for more than 50 years and the role technology could play in individualizing learning only expanded beyond the initial focus on making the assessment component easier to implement.

I return to this topic again encouraged by a recent upgrade to the use of Kahn Academy resources as a mastery system. I think I recognized how such systems might be used for a mastery approach before those who design these systems. I first saw Salman Kahn describe his system as useful for mastery learning in his book – One World Schoolhouse. At that time, his way of describing mastery was fairly primitive. Still, I assigned this book in my grad course focused on technology integration and expanded the description in the textbook with my own explanations of what mastery systems are.

If you are unfamiliar with the free Kahn Academy web site or unaware of the basics of a mastery instructional system, I encourage you to take a look at my brief videos on these topics.

The Kahn approach has grown far more sophisticated and makes a great example of the role technology can play in individualization.

The updates to the Kahn approach is described in a recent announcement.

The changes to the Kahn Academy mastery system include:

Learners now reach 100% mastery from unit mastery alone. The Course Challenge no longer accounts for a separate 20% of mastery points.

Course Challenges remain on the site as an option for learners to accelerate their mastery progress, and an efficient way for a learner with lots of prerequisite knowledge to level up in a course.

Learners can now be moved down based on their performance on a practice exercise as well. If someone is at Mastered and gets between 70% and 99% on an exercise, they will move down to Proficient in that skill. If a learner is at Mastered and gets less than 70% correct, they will move down to Familiar. If a learner is at Proficient and gets anything other than a perfect score, they will move down one level to Familiar

The Kahn Academy makes no assumption that the online system will meet the needs of all. The data collected in student efforts and the efficient way of presenting these data to students and teachers allows the teacher to spot those students who are struggling and focus her/his attention more efficiently. 

Kahn offers a sophisticated approach that includes the recognition that the teacher plays an important role and helps the teacher identify those students most in need of her/his assistance. Too often, when technology is used to fulfill part of the need for content presentation, it is assumed that the educator plays no meaningful role. When used appropriately, this assumption could not be further from the truth.