Larry Cuban posted this article by Benjamin Herold, who writes for Education Week about technology, on his blog.
The term “personalized learning” has been captured by the technology industry to represent computer-based instruction. Some people think it would be justifiable to refer to computer-based instruction as “depersonalized learning” since a computer is a machine and not a person.
The other terms the tech industry has used for marketing purposes are “individualized” and “customized.”
Herold’s review is balanced and appropriately critical, distinguishing between independent research and marketing.
The studies seem to use test scores as the best indicator of success. These scores may gauge of whether sutudents learned what the computer taught them, but says nothing about whether they could pass a test of similar material that the machine didn’t teach them.
And that’s without going into what should be the lasting effects of education: the ability to think independently, to ask questions, to think outside the box, to accomplish tasks for intrinsic purposes, rather than to win a prize.
Many educators think that the goal of computer-based instruction is to develop classrooms without teachers; a paraprofessional could be available to answer questions about the technology. Is that where the tech industry is headed? Consider this recent article in Bloomberg News which hailed the development of ships without sailors. “Doing away with sailors will make the high seas safer and cleaner.”
It sounds like a ghost story: A huge cargo vessel sails up and down the Norwegian coast, silently going about its business, without a captain or crew in sight. But if all goes as planned, it’s actually the future of shipping.
96% of all marine casualties are caused by human error. Solution: get rid of the humans. Problem solved.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“casualties caused by human error” defines Bill and Melinda Gates
LikeLike
How do you know Bill Gates is human?
What evidence do you have for that?
I see lots of evidence for the converse.
LikeLike
It’s a point worth pondering. But, alas, my time is spent exposing the manipulative, anti-democracy cabal. I like the title of Zephyr Teachout’s new organization, The Anti-Corruption League.
LikeLike
I believe Bill Gates is the best evidence of the failure of artificial intelligence.
Though he has managed to fool a lot of people, that’s just an indication that the Turing Test is not a very good indication of the existence of AI.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet In this conversation, I am reminded of that baby monkey clinging to the fake mommy-monkey put in the cage by those ignorant (and mean) psychologist-researchers. The monkey developed no social skills and was ostracized from the group he was later placed in.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, are you saying that the Bill Gates AI software was trained by fake mommy monkeys?
That would certainly explain a lot.
LikeLike
Come to think of it, Gates does seem to slough off skin at an abnormal pace.
LikeLike
PALTERING at its best! How about we run this country without a potus? Thta would be refreshing. Think: no more elections, no more campaigns, and no more idiots in charge.
The SCREEN is making us stupid.
LikeLike
Diane There is so much wrong with these ideas–the main being the most obvious–that “personalized learning” first requires persons; but apparently they seek to omit the teacher (who is the other person in “personalized learning” rightly understood. The perpetrators of these ideas only reveal their chasms of ignorance about education in general, and specifically CHILDREN’S education.
My guess is that they think education, especially for children, is only “learning about x,” and only that, instead of a multi-faceted and long-term experience of learning how to be–a human being among other human beings in a world that needs good people more than ever.
Some of these people have a penchant for (1) forgetting their past and (2) projecting their present shallowness onto the entire universe of being–as if everyone were like them, or should be. It’s so big that it probably can be called an historical misstep. And as personal, it’s the grossest form of vacuous ego-mania known to mankind. And they probably think they are not like Trump–but in fact, he’s their poster-boy.
LikeLike
It does not matter that personalized learning is neither personal nor real learning. The deep pockets behind it are ensuring its adoption on a large scale so we will subject more young people to guinea pig status. Students will probably learn some discreet skills because that is the way the machine “teaches.” What students will miss are relationships and connections to “big ideas,” where humans are better suited. If this type of instruction becomes too tedious and Orwellian, I hope students conduct mass protests and walk out.
LikeLike
In the case of shipping, they may be right … but … education is social activity undertaken by humans in which we learn how to interact with others, jointly think and reach goals, etc. I do not see the comparison.
Education via computer is really no different from any other “remote” education scheme. It has all of the same strengths and weaknesses. All of the others failed. Why? Because they lacked the human dimension that provided the impetus for the humans to follow through. (Most people in “self-paced” education programs either did not finish or advanced very slowly. Why? Because they didn’t have their peers to drag them along.) All of these “solutions” to the education problem that try to replace people are rather stupid. Kind of like trying to solve family problems by replacing the humans.
Now, education via AI, that might achieve some effect. We anthropomorphize enough to imbue a valid relationship status on an AI. A mere computer? Not a chance.
LikeLike
I agree that it actually makes sense for shipping.
The Exxon Valdez would probably not have run around and spilled massive amounts of oil if it had been piloted by today’s navigation systems.
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet But can you take out the remote but highly influential field of the captain’s background of education? A good education is never a guarantee–we still have to be on our toes, so to speak, intellectually; and we have to also want to “do the right thing.” However, education still is the “miracle grow” of human development.
LikeLike
Too many corporations could care less about “do the right thing.” They only have to pay a fine when they get caught. Our country has turned into a gigantic land of “pay to play.” That is why the billionaires are molding everything to their agenda.
LikeLike
The example of the autonomous ship suggests that it is not ever possible for an algorithm in a system of algorithms to be in error while the ship is moving about. There can be no errors in setting up the GPS and programming the onboard sensors for navigation and cargo monitoring. All weather and climate conditions are known and so on.
The example suggests that the future of nearly everything can be reduced to smart computer programming (by humans) and then by autonomous computer “learning” wherein software programs are designed so proper corrections (or best estimates) are made and “remembered” for future cases.
IBM’s Watson is currently the model for a high level of machine learning from bazillions of sources of information. If the ship makes it safely through the waters and it is has an engine, then the probability of breakdowns in every single part of the ship and engine and energy supply, and monitors of these, the hazards in every single container with cargo must have been worked out. And then all of that “information” must be adjusted in real time in response to current and predicted weather, sea currents, tides, other ships and their positions, plus the “risk” factors in their operation and so on, and so on.
The ship example is wonderfully simple and also misleading. Humans are not yet writers of perfect code.
As for personalized learning, it is usually better described as de-personalized and outsourced to non-profits other than schools but especially to entrepreneurs who are the shaping the future of learning with a lot of help from venture capitalists.
One of the leading promoters of outsourced education is Knowledgeworks.org in my home town (early and substantial funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). Writers for this non-profit rarely use the term” teacher” because everything and anything can count as learning, and learning is what matters most, not how that happens, or where, or who may be of help.
Accountability matters only if there is a need for external recognition of learning. A system for doing that is underdevelopment through stackable “badges” and “credentials” for competency or completion of requirements for more formal education or for employment.
According the KnowledgeWorks there are no compelling reasons for brick and mortar schools. Education can and should be learner centered and distributed so that badges and credential can be issued for reading a book, visiting a zoo, going to an art museum, completing a series of math worksheets, taking a course online, and so on. All of these options are possible in the “learning landscapes” around us. All we may need are some “learning sherpas” as guides. Look at “the future of learning scenarios” at the website for more. This is not the only non-profit determined to sell personalized learning as the future of everything great. And that is to say nothing about the huge investments by for-profits and venture capitalists who look on education only as a market.
LikeLike
Laura,
As I read your dystopian but depressingly realistic scenario, it makes me feel not so bad to be the age I am. No regrets. Knew the good times when people were in charge. Human to human mattered most. Now it is up to others to save what is left.
LikeLike
Without You, others can not save what is left. PARCC started with a lot of states and they were whittled down. The tipping point of Gates’ plotting will be reached. I hope all of the commenters at your blog and you, can party together in your honor, when it happens.
One personalized learning module in democracy that I would happily promote is spitting on the graves of the self-anointed rephormers.
LikeLike
I find myself feeling the same way, Diane. Even though you have 10+ years on me, I was declared obsolete shortly after I turned 60. I really don’t find myself at all eager to see what happens in the future. Between a bunch of tame techno-geeks who think it will be cool to be able to eliminate humans from the workforce to their oligarch cheerleaders who are sure we are all lazy SOBs who don’t deserve whatever pittance we can manage to earn, I find myself wishing for a rural retreat far off the grid.
LikeLike
The techies talk as if a robotic future (greatly enhanced or even total factory automation, computer teachers and the rest) were a given, when the reality is that humans are the ones who set the goals and make the choices about which paths to pursue.
The idea that the robotic future is inevitable is simply a myth that has been invented by techies and economists to fit their consumption based economic model.
If there is no place for humans envisioned within the current economic paradigm, that merely means there is something very wrong with mainstream economics, not with people.
If the rest of us decided today that we wanted a future where everyone had a gainful job, even if that meant limiting automation, we could do so. That is our choice, certainly not foreclosed on by the delusions of someone like Bill Gates.
LikeLike
SomeDam: I am with you! I think it is reckless to subject students to a form of instruction without legitimate evidence behind it. My experience with new program adoptions is slow, steady and supported by evidence. Today it is not so much about the greater good; it is more about the greater profit.
LikeLike
Predators contrive the situation and, frame the language to hide their evil. It’s abusive relationship 101.
LikeLike
Laura,
Shipping is an extremely complex business – there is no space for error. I come from a container terminal that has already automated, successfully, the process of loading and unloading of cargo; the operators sit in cabins far away from the site in a secure office – and they don’t make mistakes.
The data processing – which is a global,complex real-time affair – is already a done thing. And, I am talking about advances half-a-decade old.
As much as the number of variables is concerned – let’s not forget, we are already close to the era of self-driving cars.
Compared to that, the automation of school infrastructure ain’t a grand challenge. The only thing that prevents it from happening is the low ROI and, probably, the social opposition that exists against that idea. [But, that opposition, too, exists in only in a few countries, only. So, it’s mostly, in my views, a matter of return-on-investment only.
More importantly, you need to understand, that the process of creation of ideas, is not a matter of learning from the book. It is a matter of social and emotional sharing too.
The route of total computer-based learning – leads to grasping of what’s provided. That’s equivalent to dumping data – and ensuring the necessary is accepted by the brain. Totally programmable. However, such programming would create a work force that can take nothing more than – accept/reject decisions.
Accept/reject decisions do not fuel the development of the unknown (the blank). This unknown – is the real source of curiosity, and thus, exploration. It is this unknown that allows people to generate ideas.
With a shrinking planet, you don’t need more machine-like people – who can work in a well-defined frame-of-thought; one needs people who can make decisions that lead no possible results at all. The appetite of risk-taking; and the courage that is involved in this process is not programmable. It develops via social and emotional connections.
A teacher is lot more than just a learning guide. A teacher is an entrepreneur – who identifies what a student is capable of, and than based on his assessment – makes the proper investment in that kid – it can be a social investment or emotional, mathematical, language, musical, or whatever that kid is found to be receptive towards.
Kids who learn under the guidance of pseudo-teachers – people who only attend only to a curriculum [your, learning sherpa] – end-up doing robotic tasks only. Totally replaceable [thus, also cheap] accept/reject machines that are given jobs that need the least amount of risk-taking and no work beyond what they have been allotted with.
To be blunt, the model that your neighbors are busy creating is efficient only at creating a mechanical-labor-force employable only till the arrival of AI.
LikeLike
I work in arts education. I am fully aware of what cannot be reduced to an algorithm or treated as if artificial intelligence is a great proxy for inventive thinking. Human beings are not just ” cognitive” networks. We are flesh and blood creatures whose nuanced feelings and unique experiences are beyond “sentiment” analysis and the reductive thinking that governs so much policy making and investment in education.
You seem to think that what I am reporting on–the vision of KnowledgeWorks–is my own. Wrong. I think that their future scenarios are full of unrecognized assumptions about the absolute freedom of entrepeneurs to shape a new world order free of constraints and with no ” school infrastructure.”
I am also aware that you seem to have adopted a market-based description of the work of a teacher– an ” entrepreneur” who makes “investments” In kids. I certainly hope that view is not widely shared by teachers, although it is obviously embedded in the policies of almost all of the elected officials and economists of our era.
As for self-diving cars, there is not yet a perfected system for insurance and assigning legal responsibility for accidents. Widespread adoption is not yet assured. As for shipping being a complex operation, I know that. But the contents being loaded and unloaded and transported do not have minds of their own.
LikeLike
Laura H. Chapman Thank you for responding to that note–I reluctantly put it aside, but am glad you responded and am in agreement with what you say. The “market mentality” evident in that note is like a cancer on what still struggles to be a fully human culture with a democratic political order, the USA. The ironic twist is that those who think monetary wealth is the qualified end-all gain power and then set their own reductionist values as the frame for manifesting their power over others.
Both Trump and Gates (as Diane’s recent note suggested) give plain evidence that they are SO SURPRISED when they find out about something that so many others have known for years. Wow! Health care is REALLY complicated! Wow! there’s such a thing as multiple intelligence! Their attitudes show that (1) they don’t know that they don’t know and (2) they think they DO know–a case of classic dogmatism on both counts. Money, power, and dogmatism–not new, and not a good combination in any situation.
LikeLike
Hey Laura,
I did take your reporting as your own views. An apology may not be sufficient here; but… you see, any talk about automation that could lead people to conclude that machines can replace people ticks me off. It’s kind of a trigger with me.
Catherine is correct too; it seems, my comment does stinks of ‘market mentality’. 😦
LikeLike
I just wish public schools wouldn’t invest so much in it with no idea whether it’s a good investment or not.
I saw one whole STATE committed to it- New Hampshire, I think. That seems crazily reckless to me.
Why not let it be adopted gradually and more organically? If this stuff has value people will seek it out. They don’t need it crammed down their throat.
It’s the same arrogance that underlies a lot of ed reform- that only THEY can lead the dummies to “innovation”. I read the ed tech stuff and it’s all that nonsense about people are “resistant” to their awesome ideas.
Maybe people are resistant to their awesome ideas because they’re bad ideas. Can they give people SOME credit?
My son works in the tech industry and he thinks it’s an absolute travesty to plunk kids in front of screens and tell them it’s “innovation”. He’s horrified at the industry for not being more cautious when selling product to 2nd graders.
LikeLike
I was hoping the ed tech debacle in LA would give these folks pause but it only seems to have increased the hard sell.
DeVos is the worst. She’s a pitchman for ed tech product. She needs to stop using that government job to rip off public schools. It’s disgusting and corrupt.
LikeLike
DeVos was invested in some of those rip-offs. Not clear whether she divested. She also was an investor in rip-off for-profit colleges.
LikeLike
I would just ask people to use ordinary common sense. The tech industry has very good marketing. They portray themselves as wholly committed to the betterment of humanity but this is a business like any other. There’s nothing magical or inherently superior about these people.
Would you accept a sales pitch from any other industry like people eagerly swallow tech pitches? No. Of course not. So don’t just swallow it.
Public schools are huge buyers. Approach this as a buyer. They’re not doing you a favor. YOU are doing THEM a favor. Make them show value or take a pass. Remember that you will have to justify these expenses to the public when the latest ed reform craze dies down. Don’t make bad decisions.
LikeLike
We’re these the same prognosticators who brought us the prediction that keyboards would be obsolete soon? Yet here I am, keyboarding on a qwerty keyboard that was invented to slow down an old piece of technology.
We’re these the same soothsayers who said computers would make paper a thing of the past? Yet we have blizzards of paper with reams printed out for consumption of unsuspecting clones working for low wages.
Machines require more, not fewer personnel. And the use of them requires more training to get a good result.
The purveyors of machines that teach know that spending more money on education will never fly in this political day. They are willo supplant teachers.
LikeLike
I am one of the guys being fired at here, yet I must take the opposite stand – so unfortunate. :(.
As of yet, I have worked with shipping, cargo-handling, telecommunications and entertainment industry – front-end and back-end, both. It’s totally true, automation IS introduced with the promise of making users’ job easier; it’s reach is expanded with the aid of reports that show better results; and disgustingly, the matter ends with the replacement of people from the equation. Troubled with the outcomes (disgusting, because those who propose the ‘letting go’ are humans themselves,) I have switched profession after profession; but, everywhere the outcome was the same- people are being replaced at the whim of people with machines.
Frankly, I ain’t a machine hater. But the idea that effectiveness is being considered as more valuable than the people it is meant to serve drives me nuts.
I used to find the idea of globalization really enticing – one gets to work with new faces; learns new techniques; earn new ideas ; it felt like… a kind of freedom, you know. I don’t think the same anymore.
Here’s why –
1. When the people losing/gaining jobs are continents apart – there is no emotional connection – the lack of social responsibility towards each other is horrifying.
2. If you can put the blame on a computer – justify your actions (“I did my work, look!”) with computer-generated reports – one can easily escape the blame. In fact, it’s possible for everyone to escape the blame [Even with a failure at hand.]
3. There is always a human cost involved. You are firing your own people – so that those same people (whom you fired) can get better service! That’s nuts to me.
This does not mean – I don’t like automation. As I said, I am a mechanic at heart. To me, the gentle hum of hydraulic valves is music. Yet, I have failed, repeatedly – I am proud of that – to accept the practice of firing people and bringing in machines. Somewhere, it doesn’t fit in with me.
I know, the shift towards using machines is inevitable. And, I also accept that use of computers in schools can help bridge gaps. I agree, teachers with good tools can do wonders; but, a classroom with no teacher! Schools with only computers! That’s an idea I’ll never accept.
LikeLike
“Frankly, I ain’t a machine hater. But the idea that effectiveness is being considered as more valuable than the people it is meant to serve drives me nuts.”
Me too, and thanks for the earlier mea culpa. I too can get carried away.
My relationship with the computers and technologies has changed over time from wonderment at the optics of the first earth resources satellite to the realization that almost all technologies of that era (including amazing digital images of the earth) were the result of investments from the military-industrial complex.
LikeLike
**. . . the military-industrial complex** proving that it’s not the technology but what we humans do with it that counts.
LikeLike