Personalized learning is hard work. And when poorly planned and executed, it does not work well at all.
But that should not stop schools from pursuing the goal of tailoring instruction to individual students鈥� academic strengths and weaknesses as well as their personal interests. That appears to be one of the big takeaways from our nationally representative survey of nearly 600 teachers on personalized-learning topics, featured extensively in this report.
The survey鈥攃onducted this past summer鈥攅xamines a host of issues around this often ill-defined but increasingly popular approach for meeting students鈥� individual learning needs. Half the educators surveyed, for instance, describe personalized learning as one tool in the school improvement toolbox or a 鈥減romising idea,鈥� and more than 20 percent view it as a 鈥渢ransformational way鈥� to improve K-12 education.
But that largely optimistic take on the promise of personalized learning does not match up well with what is actually happening in classrooms, the survey suggests. It found that nearly 3 of every 4 educators say they 鈥渘ever鈥� or 鈥渞arely鈥� use digital software to construct 鈥渓earner profiles鈥� of students, and 60 percent say they 鈥渘ever鈥� or 鈥渞arely鈥� use adaptive software to let students learn at their own pace. And those are both key tenets of digitally driven personalized learning.
Complicating matters is the fact that schools often make big mistakes before and while embarking on personalized-learning efforts, including failing to define what it means and why they are doing it, assuming it鈥檚 all about simply putting digital devices in students鈥� hands, and failing to recognize that effective personalized-learning strategies demand major shifts in teacher practice. What is especially problematic is that schools too often overlook the importance of measuring impact鈥攁nd that is a recipe for disappointment and frustration down the road.
鈥淓verybody absolutely needs an understanding of why鈥�'We鈥檙e doing this because we want students to be able to do X, Y, and Z,鈥� 鈥� said Betheny Gross, an associate director for the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington and a co-author of a 2018 report that examines the struggles of making personalized learning work. 鈥淲hat happens when that strategic vision is not in place is you end up with a lot of haphazard stuff that is not valuable to students or teachers.鈥�
Even with these challenges in front of them, schools around the country are learning important lessons by testing new approaches. One middle school in Minnesota, for example, built its own 鈥淔lex Scheduler鈥� software, with the goal of creating more flexible class schedules to empower students to tackle courses at their own pace. The program started small and is expanding.
Of course, many educators emphasize that effective personalized learning is not just about the technology. New personalized-learning approaches that have nothing to do with technology are emerging, too. More teachers are using so-called 鈥済enius hours鈥� to make time for students to produce projects driven by their personal interests; and multiage grouping is challenging the traditional organization of students by age, rather than skills or ability. Some schools are also integrating social, emotional, and physical learning needs, building what some are calling 鈥渨hole child鈥� personalized-learning strategies.
The ultimate goal of personalized-learning supporters is to measure the impact of these various approaches and expand what works to more schools.
But that remains a daunting challenge.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bushweller,
Executive Project Editor
