Whilst we usually discuss topics specifically related to the arts, in this post we are going to respond to a number of recent posts by others suggesting that personalisation of learning doesn’t work and has negative consequences. Whilst we won’t directly discuss arts education, personalisation of learning is so central to education, we hope that this discussion will be useful to those working in the arts sector.
Hopefully, by the end of this blog, we’ll have identify why a misunderstanding of educational language leads others towards incorrectly arguing against personalisation. Indeed, ultimately this post is going to suggest that more, not less, personalisation is what’s needed right across education.
Defining Personalisation vs. Differentiation
A good place to start is by defining what personalisation is and distinguishing it from differentiation. Most posts that decry personalisation don’t even discuss differentiation, which is surprising as the two terms are related. Instead, many of the posts confuse personalisation with differentiation, and even more worryingly, some even suggest the two terms can be used interchangeably.
Personalisation entails a dynamic shift in the curriculum, to cater to the unique learning intentions, needs, and motivations of different students. In this approach, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model is discarded, allowing students to learn about different topics and engage in diverse tasks, even within the same class. This approach is commonly observed in higher education, but it’s worth noting that personalisation can thrive in K-12 education, particularly within project-based learning settings.
Importantly, personalisation doesn’t have to involve students working in isolation, even if the tasks are different for each student. For instance, students working on a collaborative project might assume different roles. This flexibility empowers students to choose their preferred modality and explore their own interests.
Differentiation, on the other hand, is far more limited in scope. Students within a class engage in the same topic or task but at a difficulty level suited to their individual learning stage. For instance, a maths lesson on measurement might be differentiated with some students focussing on understanding the ruler, whilst others are applying knowledge of the ruler to measure objects. While this example involves two levels of differentiation, educators often create three or more discrete activities to accommodate varying skill levels.
The Role of E-Learning
A major plus for many e-learning systems is their ability to effectively differentiate work. They are able to use their analytics to tailor tasks to align with the exact skill level of each student, identifying barriers to learning and providing practice tasks that can lead towards mastery. The ability for e-Learning platforms to differentiate more quickly and effectively that teachers, is viewed by many advocates as a way to revolutionise learning.
Unfortunately, what these platforms do is often described as ‘personalising learning’ rather than differentiation. Indeed, on many posts decrying personalisation an explanation of this type of e-Learning is used as a rather blunt tool to bash personalisation.
Exceptionally few e-learning systems move beyond differentiation towards personalisation. Some adaptive systems are leaning in this direction, but their use by schools is very limited.
Whilst many blog posts seem to suggest large numbers of children are to be found working on personalised learning activities, sat at laptops, headphones on, isolated from each other, the reality is that it’s exceptionally rare.
A far more common use of e-Learning involves its use as supplement to traditional classroom education. Platforms like Khan Academy, for example, are most often used to support the consolidation of what has been learnt at school or college, or the teaching of concepts prior to a class, rather than replacing traditional methods.
A Plea for More Personalisation
Many critiques of personalised education direct their wroth towards e-Learning systems used in isolation, suggesting that this is the personalisation of learning. As we’ve highlighted, this is neither personalisation nor something typically undertaken in education. The pandemic might be the exception that proves the rule here, the only other obvious example being home schooling.
Critics often point out that e-Learning approaches are championed by the CEOs of tech companies, who are primarily autodidactic individuals. The argument is that they are basing their enthusiasm for e-Learning upon their own learning preferences assuming that this will fit all students. Interestingly, this very argument highlights why personalisation is important, there will be students like this in most schools, and equally there will be students who learn best in socially engaged settings; without personalisation one or other group will have their learning limited to some extent. The best teachers are able to identify the most suitable approaches for each student, and they will use them to maximise learning – they are personalising learning.
Conclusions
The essence of personalisation lies in recognising that one size does not fit all learners. It’s about identifying how each student learns best, whether through e-Learning or other approaches. Personalisation is not a one-stop solution but a dynamic approach to meet diverse educational needs.
The debate surrounding personalised education is nuanced. By understanding the distinctions between personalisation and differentiation, the role of e-Learning, and the need for flexible, adaptable education, we can create a more informed and constructive dialogue about the future of learning. Embracing personalisation is not about discarding traditional methods but recognising the value of tailored education.
