Have you noticed the the increased use of the terms “individualization”, “differentiation” and “personalization” ? While more prevalent in K-12 education conversations, the terms (often linked with adaptive technologies) are increasingly part of the focus within higher education. They are cited as being part of the move to more effectively engage diverse learners and help them learn what they are interested in, and need for their future.
Do you think you know what they mean? Do you feel you are able to offer one or all of these approaches in your teaching?
When I asked myself, I realized I was a little hazy on the differences between the terms and was finding the link to online learning and the power of adaptive approaches and technologies. So, to clarify I turned to my Googlebrain and found what seemed to be a useful explanation (from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology) and discovered that two were actually subsumed in one (i.e., individualization and differentiation are considered a part of personalization).
| Individualization | Differentiation | Personalization |
|---|---|---|
| instruction paced to the learning needs of each student | instruction to meet learning preferences of different learners | instruction paced to learning needs, preferences and interests of different learners |
| learning goals same for each student | learning goals same for each student | learning objectives, content, method and pace may all vary |
| learning progress allows faster, slower pace for each student | method and/or approach varies for each student, based on their preferences or what research has found works best for students like them | encompasses both individualization and differentiation |
| Personalization – “Personalized Learning” |
|---|
| instruction in which the pace of learning and the instructional approach are optimized for the needs of each learner. Learning objectives, instructional approaches, and instructional content (and its sequencing) may all vary based on learner needs.
In addition, learning activities are meaningful and relevant to learners, driven by their interests, and often self-initiated. |
Based on my own experiences, I would say I try to offer this kind of flexibility to individual learners as often as I can but I doubt I ever fully achieve “personalization”. I don’t really see how it is possible to address all the aspects described in the definition, within a structured school system built on measurable, demonstrable, similar learning outcomes.
Many of us face increasing class sizes, increasing diversity of learners, and a growing complexity of teaching. Even in the face-to-face classrooms, teachers are hard-pressed to get to know each of their students well enough to provide appropriate flexibility of timing, approaches, and completion options. The laudable intentions of the “personalization” approach assume that every learner is able to identify what is meaningful and relevant when new ideas, concepts and content are shared. While the learner-centred interpretation of the three terms put forward by Bray and McClaskey are inspiring, I have had many students who weren’t focused enough on my course (among all the competing demands in their busy adult lives) to even want to achieve “mastery” or to take the time to monitor and reflect on their own learning.
And a challenge that is never mentioned in the articles and conversations about the benefits of personalization, is how do you keep track of what you’ve done, why, for whom, and whether and what they have achieved and how it relates to the stated outcomes of the syllabus? “Aha,” you might say. “There’s an app for that!” Technology is often cited as the answer to customizing learning for individuals.
Some practical examples of how “the machine” can identify problems (in curriculum) quickly, help to improve curriculum on the fly, and help an online instructor identify emergent or potential problems that individuals were presented several years ago by Stanford’s Daphne Koller in her popular What we’re learning from online education TED Talk. Since then the possibilities of machine-assisted teaching surround every conversation about how to help students learn and succeed. A more recent EDUCAUSE article, “How Personalized Learning Unlocks Student Success” provides a list of ways in which instructors can use machine-generated data to personalize learning activities and includes a Utopian vision of accessibility, enjoyment and positive partnerships between instructors, adaptive courseware and happy students.
If I sound a little skeptical of many of the claims of technology, it’s based on my experiences and observations. While technology makes it possible to provide amazing learning experiences and to manage the outcomes, we’re still learning how to use the tools well. The power, scope and potential of new technologies progresses faster than we seem to be able to respond – both in using those powers for positive effects and to protect our learners (and ourselves) from the potential harm and loss of privacy.
Header image: On-screen analytics @Jisc and Matt Lincoln and Teacher and learner group, @tamuc via Flickr, CCBY
eRefs
Alli, Nazeema, Rahim Rajan, Greg Ratliff (Mar 7, 2016) How Personalized Learning Unlocks Student Success, EDUCAUSE review, Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/3/how-personalized-learning-unlocks-student-success
Basye, Dale (Jan. 24, 2018) ISTE Blog – Education leadership, Personalized vs. differentiated vs. individualized learning, retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=124
Bray, Barbara and Kathleen McClaskey, (??) for Education Alberta, “Personalization vs Differentiation vs Individualization https://education.alberta.ca/media/3069745/personalizationvsdifferentiationvsindividualization.pdf
Koller, Daphne (https://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education)
Lam, Evelyn (Aug 31, 2016) Review: Weapons of Math Destruction, Scientific American Blog, Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/review-weapons-of-math-destruction/
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, (2010) Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology (pdf) – https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512681.pdf (see p.12)
Note: These periodic reports are referred to generally as National Education Technology Plans.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, (January 2017) Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Technology Plan Update (pdf), https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf (see p. 9 sidebar, Personalized Learning)