Personalized Learning - Debate

Debate

Personalized learning is a new topic within the field of education. It has led to debates in both the UK (2006 to present) and Canada (2010) where some educators are concerned that it could diminish the relational and ethical dimensions of education. Drs. Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley (2009), however, warn about potential negative aspects of some dimensions of personalized learning in their book entitled The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change. They write, for example, that while there are advantages in students being able to access information instantly on-line, one should not mistake such processes for "something deeper, more challenging, and more connected to compelling issues in their world and their lives." The general argument is that the agenda around personalized learning is more and more directed to technologically-mediated tools.

All of the different parties to the ongoing debates about personalized learning agree that schools should become more flexible and adaptive in responding to the diverse needs and interests of students. They all agree that there is great potential in new technologies. However, they differ in the nature of their criticisms of traditional schools and curricula and in the degree of confidence in the role of technology in contemporary society.

OECD in 2006 published a document about Personalization in the School System. The debate has been enriched by the research activities carried out in 2010 within the European Grundtvig Project named LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development LAB (502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP). In this Project the partners, from different European States (Italy, France, Germany, Finland, Greece, Spain, Switzerland), propose a shared European definition of the term Personalization based on an Andragogic concept of Education within the contest of the NVAE – Non Vocational Adult Education. This common definition of the term personalization is based on the European experiences of personalization in adult Education, it is not based on a theoretical model defined outside of the country's reality.
This definition includes recurrent features:

• Involvement of the all dimensions of learner (cognitive social, emotive);
• Empowerment of awareness of the learning process;
• Development of self regulated learning process;
• Co-design of the learning pathway and process;
• Development of self-evaluation process;
• Learning challenges instead of learning objectives;
• Learning pathway instead of instructional curriculum or training program;
• Achievable results are not predictable a priori.

According to this common definition partners propose an integrated European Model of personalization and Guidelines to apply it. The challenge of this synthesis,according to the LEADLAB Project’s partners is therefore to check if, from and beyond the national traditions, this new paradigm can be verified in the different countries, to enable the formulation of a joint proposal at the European level.

According to Bray & McClaskey (2012), there is confusion around the terms Personalized Learning. The focus in the 2010 National Education Technology Plan focused on instruction -- not the learner. In a Personalized Learning Environment, learning starts with the learner. The learner understands how they learn best so they are active in designing their learning goals. The learner has a voice in how they like to access and acquire information, and a choice in how they express what they know and how they prefer to engage with the content. When learners own and take responsibility of their learning, they are more motivated and engaged in the learning process.