In a new report from the National Education Policy Center, Professor Noel Enyedy urges school leaders to be cautious in accepting claims that technology can “personalize instruction” or lead to transformational changes. The full report can be found here.
The use of computers in the classroom – or even instead of classrooms – has generated renewed enthusiasm in influential circles. Advocates of significantly advancing the practice often refer to greater reliance on computer-based learning as “Personalized Instruction.”
Yet while its potential merits thoughtful small-scale adoption, there is little evidence that marrying digital technology to education has changed schooling for the better, according to a new policy brief published today by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC).
The reasons for such lackluster results are many, according to the report’s author, Noel Enyedy, associate professor of education and information studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. Chief among them is the absence of a clear model for what actually constitutes “Personalized Instruction”; advocates of the practice apply the term to a wide range of approaches to teaching that rely heavily on online or other digital resources.
“Computers are now commonplace in the classroom, but teaching practices often look similar, as do learning outcomes,” Enyedy writes in his policy brief, Personalized Instruction: New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning. The brief is published today by the NEPC, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education.
“After more than 30 years, Personalized Instruction is still producing incremental change,” Enyedy writes. Large-scale studies, including meta-analyses, of Personalized Instruction programs “show mixed results ranging from modest impacts to no impact.”
Additionally, Enyedy points out, the highest potential for benefits appears to reside principally with so-called blended instruction programs, which make use of traditional classroom teaching in close alignment with elements that might be delivered via computer, including online. Blended learning done well, he notes, is more expensive than traditional education – undermining the frequent claim that computerized instruction can help achieve significant fiscal savings.
In light of the growing interest – yet lack of evidence to support – sweeping changes in schooling that would rely on digital media, Enyedy offers a series of recommendations for policymakers and researchers:
While continuing to invest in technology, policymakers should do so incrementally. They should view skeptically claims and promotion of computerized learning that oversteps what can be concluded from available research evidence.
Policymakers and researchers should clearly distinguish among the key features of technologies being used in education so that research and discussions can revolve around shared ideas and concretely defined practices.
Much more research is needed in the K-12 education context, because the evidence primarily cited is extrapolated from research involving undergraduate students and in the professions, “where developmental and motivational factors differ,” Enyedy observes.
Policymakers should encourage developers of educational technologies to work with researchers and teachers in testing and validating particular software and hardware tools: “We cannot trust market forces alone to sort out which systems are effective.”
When investing in technology to be used in education, school administrators must ensure that there is “substantial professional development for teachers” to go with it.
Everyone involved with schools must understand that Personalized Instruction is just one of several models for using computers in the classroom, and all need to be open to considering alternative approaches to making greater use of technology in the learning process.
Yeah! Trumpet it from the hills! I find the term personalized instruction distasteful when applied to computer instruction. Computers have a place in education, but they do not substitute for direct human interaction. As a special education teacher, I found computers extremely useful, but they never replaced my professional judgement. They informed it. They never developed trusting relationships with my students. My students never went to the computer to talk out their problems or struggles. I might use the computer to provide support, but they were never good at encouragement. It is time for this particular marketing ploy to die.
As a special ed teacher, you might find this article interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/brain-games-are-bogus
Thanks, it is an interesting article very much in line with my thinking and really is common sense. If you spend a lot of time jumping rope, you get better at jumping rope. However, even though jumping is part of skipping, you will not necessarily skip better. That is the whole problem with this kind of task analysis of learning. Something(s) we call working memory appears to be important in problem solving, so we isolate what we think working memory is and train it. Computers are particularly handy for this repetitive practice of increasingly difficult approximations of a skill. Unfortunately, when we try to dissect a task into its component skills, when we “glue” these skills back together, the learning of these individual skills does not necessarily translate into improvement on the complete task. The whole is much greater than the sum of what we defined as its components. An interesting experiment might be to examine if individuals who have been through the training learn how to solve a novel problem faster than those who have not. Obviously, there are many different populations on which to test these ideas and most likely they have been done since I am just randomly pontificating now.
I agree. Computers have a place and can supplement, not supplant human instruction in most cases. Computers help learning of specific skills, especially those that build incrementally such as math, science or grammar. They currently are not effective in tasks requiring synthesis and application other than in the area of word processing. That is one of the reasons they have not been able to effectively evaluate writing samples. Computers don’t think!
2oldtoteach — what you say here applies very well to use of language-learning programs. They are terrific for learning short beginner phrases; they can be a super aide to memory by increasing the number of repetitions; with the right eqpt they can even help pronunciation. But– just as with in-person pedagogoical approaches, these are all just practice of component skills and do not lead by themselves to the ability to initiate and respond in real conversation.
I’m really wary, because all of these experiments seem to be conducted in low income or middle income schools, and the entire focus is on an increase in test scores. I’m also wary because they all seem to include giant classes.
I would like a real evaluation where all the costs and anticipated benefits are considered, including the cost of a focus on technology compared to a focus elsewhere. In a real public school with real budgets, deciding to pursue one avenue means deciding NOT to invest in something else.
What is more valuable to students, with limited funds? A clean physical space that is in good repair or a tablet? I saw the photos of (some) LA public school classrooms when they were buying tablets and I think I would have repaired the facilities rather than purchase devices. There WILL be trade-offs, and pretending there won’t be is just fantasy.
The report is taking from Larry Cuban’s playbook. All reform is incremental. Technology integration is incremental. No where except in charters like Rocketship do computers replace teachers, and that model will surely fade in a very short time.
The most important take-away from this report is that technology doesn’t come with cost savings. So if school districts think they can save money by blended learning models or straight online models, they are fooling themselves. Personalized learning is merely a buzz word that makes the technology expense palpable to school boards.
Our school division just began a 3 year commitment for 1:1 by 2017. When I asked what happens in 2018, 2019? You will still need to purchase more devices every year thereafter. Taxpayers are wondering what the breaking point will be on their taxes when the school division projects enrollment increases of 4-6% a year for the next 10 years!
Increasingly I believe our school board is expecting the devices will replace the need for capital investments in infrastructure in order to hold down costs. Currently my division is spending $19,000 per student for 22,340 students. In 10 years, or less, at 4-6% growth (and they keep the numbers low so as not to run screaming into the night), there will be 37,000 students–with not enough building capacity to house them all! So laptops will get every kid at least one course online, and one period not in a building so alternative schedules can provide space. But that is our situtation.
Further you should note that anyone like me who has been involved in professional development for technology integration in the classroom will tell you that technology is no silver bullet, but can be a powerfully engaging tool to strengthen and deepen understanding. But it takes time to develop the ability to create lessons with the right tools to do that. It’s incremental.
I design tech software for my students. I do SAT Test prep for a living. I agree with this article. Too many scams.
First Age-Agriculture (We’re farmers)
Second Age-Industry (We’re workers)
Third Age-Information (We’re users)
Fourth Age-Machines (We’re obsolete)
From what I’ve read, “Personalized Instruction” hinges on “smart software” that purports to recognize each student’s instructional level and adjusts their lessons accordingly. I have been teaching college classes online for over a decade and I have seen a lot of different kinds of software, but I have yet to see a program that enables students to ask questions and receive answers. That’s still a task which occurs between students and real teachers where I work.
If I may correct one of your statements:
I have been TRAINING college STUDENTS online for over a decade and I have seen a lot of different kinds of software. . . “
You do not know me and you have no idea how I TEACH.
Other Spaces,
My comment is not meant as a personal jab but is meant to be a jab at the idea that distance learning via computers, especially those that involve rudimentary training should be considered “teaching”. I wasn’t clear with that thought though through my comment. You’ll know if I direct a jab directly at you as I will address it as so.
I believe this report is a step in the right direction for redirecting the use of technology from only “drill and kill” to true integration as a learning tool. Unfortunately, the report seems to ignore some school districts that have gone the extra mile and spent time and money to try a different path. The following link will answer many questions about using iPads and other devices for the right reasons. Minnetonka is a school (and district) which implemented technology in a careful, thoughtful and sensible way. Please peruse their website and share with others who want to know about how technology can and should be used in our schools. I’m saddened that Broward County (and others around Florida) who used to be leaders in technology, now appear to be reverting back to “drill and kill” with an extra dose of high stakes testing. We are in the midst of a massive purchase of Microsoft based laptops which were specifically chosen by the district so that students can do test prep and test taking or on-line courses. I’d much rather have students use technology that they were familiar with in their everyday lives, much as they are doing in Minnetonka and many private schools. It might actually lead to lifelong learning. I would prefer that schools adapt to BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) than the total waste of time and taxpayer dollars that I see being pushed in Broward and other test conscious districts. Here’s an excerpt from the link:
“Minnetonka is a national leader in using technology to accelerate learning. Since 2002 when Minnetonka installed its first SMART Boards, teachers have been digitizing curriculum and learning materials. Unlike many other schools using iPads, Minnetonka is not relying solely on third-party apps to teach; Minnetonka teachers are relying on Minnetonka curriculum to teach. Teachers continue to post course notes and assignments, which students can download to their iPad, add their own notes, complete assignments and return homework to teachers via the iPad.
Minnetonka teachers focus on formative assessments (practice homework and quizzes) to assess student learning throughout a lesson. Research is clear that when teachers use frequent formative assessments, they are better able to gauge student learning, reteach material if needed, or move on if everyone understands. The iPad tools combined with Schoology or Skyward formative assessments allow teachers to more efficiently administer and grade formative assessments, allowing more timely intervention if a student doesn’t understand a concept. [watch video explanation]
Minnetonka students take the iPad home, just as they would take their textbooks home. The iPad stores their text, homework, teachers notes and all the papers they would normally keep in a folder, all together in one spot. Students can be more organized, and have homework handy anywhere, anytime. [watch video testimonial from students and parents] When students are reading a novel, students can read and take notes directly on the iPad, which also has a built in dictionary and notes summary. [watch video of how to use the iBook for English]”
http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/administration/technology/iPads/Pages/QuestionsAnswers.aspx
Indeed!!!. I commented on this kind of thing yesterday. When machines are thought to be more intelligent than humans, when artificial intelligence is deemed superior to human intelligence, someone is not playing with a full deck.
“. . . not playing with a full deck.”
Either that or that “artificial intelligence” is actually “superior” to the humans who would think that “machines are thought to be more intelligent. . .”
Wow FOX News no less!
Common Core Spurs Home Schooling Trend.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/25/opposition-to-common-core-spurs-jump-in-homeschooling/
Like it or not, this is what is coming. The whole reason why certain people paid to have the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] created was to have a single set of national standards to key their software to.
These same people poured a lot of money into off-site distance learning, but the outcomes were abysmal. Few finished the courses, and those who did finished with poorer outcomes and less satisfaction with what they had learned.
So, on to the next model. Flipped classes. 400 kids in a room doing online learning and a single low-level aide wandering among them to answer questions and make sure the machines are working. And why have thousands of professors teaching Econ 101 when you can have one scripted talking head beamed out to all those classes?
Presto. Dramatically lowered cost and dramatically centralized control.
Educational technology opens many beautiful possibilities:
Offering courses not otherwise available to small numbers of students
Offering courses to students in remote locations with very little access, otherwise, to great schools and materials
Providing zoom in and slow-motion demonstrations and analysis (let’s take a trip inside a star or inside the human heart or inside a
DC motor and see how it works)
Allowing students to listen to lectures by incredibly gifted teachers (check out Christine Hayes’s Introduction to the Hebrew Bible or Paul Frye’s Introduction to Theory Ben Polak’s Introduction to Game Theory from Yale Open Courses)
Making available vast resources (that modern Library of Libraries–the Internet–many millions of books and scholarly articles
Crowd-sourcing assistance, such as homework help (check out Dr. Math)
Running simulations (see the fascinating discussions of these in Stephen Wolfram’s The New Science)
Doing continuous updating and refinement of materials
Online collaboration around the world (check this out, for example):
Educational technology also makes possible using push technologies to enforce truly frightening and dangerous centralized command and control. This is done in many ways–by controlling what outcomes will be measured via bullet lists like the CCSS, by selling people expensive software/hardware systems with limited access to anything but materials from the vendor and its partners and dramatic costs for switching from these once committed to them.
So, caveat emptor. For superb examples of purest hype and nonsense regarding minor technological innovations, see the discussions of the new online test question formats on the PARCC site. They have basically done minor online instantiations of a few of what used to be called “objective format question types” and are treating these as though they were as revolutionary as the discovery of fire or of the wheel.
Maybe it’s time for teacher preparation programs to support a vote of “No Confidence” in the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation (CAEP). CAEP’s recent release of Building an Evidence-Based System for Teacher Preparation (http://caepnet.org/resources/building-an-evidence-based-system-for-teacher-preparation/) reads like a manifesto to create for-profit teacher prep factories to run “21st Century School” factories. The report essentially mandates at least five (likely more) nationally norm-referenced exams for teacher candidates (all linked to federal mandates) — and that’s all you need. There’s really no need for any authentic teacher preparation as we know it. The report cites NCTQ and Kate Walsh numerous times, and appears to be modeling itself after Kate Walsh’s ill-conceived ABCTE program (abcte.org) — notice how close it is to AACTE (aacte.org). ABCTE requires only a mere 60 hours of contact with real students prior to graduation. Unfortunately, this 60 hours will probably be sufficient for 21st Century, norm-referenced-MicroPearson-soft-robo teachers “Dave, please turn back to your screen and continue with your next exam or I’ll have to employ the off task gear.”
This is very alarming, but not surprising, considering all the political and corporate support for eviscerating teacher education, so that profiteers can replace it with this garbage.
Is there a petition or no confidence letter that has been drafted somewhere?
AMEN to your comment, Shepherd. And yes, to your second comment…those statements are made fo SELL. BEWARE as you suggested. YES, indeed, BEWARE. This is about $$$$$ and control.
The Internet is a tool. Nothing more. And more like a hammer than a scalpel. I have students who read at a 4th grade level and believe in the ghost stories on the Discovery channel. To let them roam on the Internet is like giving a baby a knife to play with. How do they know a credible article when they see it? Yes I could teach them, but that would take a lot of time, time I need to cover content instead of going deep into a subject. Thank you high-stakes tests.
I find that most Internet articles are either below or above grade level, or don’t exactly cover what I want to teach. And the history games are rote memory stuff. I can do that without signing out 25 laptops (and all the time and trouble that means).
And the last time they used the laptops, they stole the keys.
What passes for personalization is giving a kid a test to see which of a list of skills he or she has supposedly mastered and then serving up lessons on the ones that haven’t been mastered. This is fairly easy to do when one is dealing with elementary arithmetic and geometry. Either you know what 6 times 7 is or you don’t. As Laura Chapman points out above, this revolutionary approach currently being touted is simply 1960s-era programmed learning risen from the dead. Or, to use a different metaphor, old vinegar in new wine bottles.
Of course, such an approach is not applicable to, say, teaching literature and writing and much else beyond the most elementary levels. So, the reading and writing curriculum gets dumbed down to make the inappropriate tool work at all. Being able to read becomes operationalized as a list of outcomes that the software can test for, like being able to choose which of four sentences contains a metaphor.
Of course, the software makers are so ignorant that they don’t recognize (metaphor: having an idea = seeing a thing) that it’s almost impossible to construct (metaphor: writing = construction) a sentence that does not contain (metaphor: sentence = container) a metaphor because language is absolutely shot through (metaphor: expressions = holes caused by bullet or arrows) with metaphor, and so they inadvertently include (metaphor: choosing to use particular language = putting something into a container) dead metaphors in all four sentences, and all the sentences are, technically, correct answers, though their software doesn’t know this (it would require a human to point this out). So, the ELA software program turns out to be not only not up to the task for which it was developed (to teach literature, say) but also permeated with error
That’s what the future of ELA looks like, folks, and it’s not pretty. An entire discipline, in all its sophistication, hacked up and shoved into a Procrustean bed. Or, to use Maslow’s metaphor, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as if it were a nail.
Enydey’s call to abandon the factory model is welcome… but step one in doing so is to abandon the use of standardized tests to “measure” the effectiveness of technology and step two is to make sure that every student and teacher have access to broadband in their homes as well as in their classrooms. http://waynegersen.com/2014/11/26/personalized-instruction-vs-personalized-learning/