The research supporting the current trend towards 鈥減ersonalized learning鈥� is limited, as 澳门跑狗论坛 detailed earlier this month in a special report on growing efforts to design teaching and learning around K-12 students鈥� distinctive strengths, needs, and preferences.
鈥淟imited,鈥� however, doesn鈥檛 mean that such research is all new or emerging.
Included among the dozens of studies we reviewed for the report were a handful of evaluations dating to the 1970s on 鈥渕astery learning鈥� and what was known as the 鈥淧ersonalized System of Instruction.鈥� Developed by educational psychologists Benjamin Bloom and Fred Keller, respectively, both are clear philosophical and pedagogical antecedents of the contemporary personalized-learning push.
鈥淥ften when we see an ed-tech product, the developers will talk about how amazing and groundbreaking it is,鈥� said Jennifer Morrison, an assistant professor of education at Johns Hopkins University who focuses on evaluations of educational technology.
鈥淎nd it鈥檚 like, 鈥楴o, no, no鈥攖hat was first done a long time ago,鈥� 鈥� Morrison said.
Personalized learning鈥檚 origins in behaviorism
So what can these old approaches tell us about one of K-12鈥檚 newest trends?
The roots of all of it can be traced back to behaviorism, Morrison said. The theory holds that human behavior can be explained by how we are conditioned to respond to various stimuli in our environments. In its broadest terms, behaviorism has been reflected in educational settings that emphasize rote learning to help students find 鈥渞ight鈥� answers.
In 1976, researchers what was known at the time about Bloom鈥檚 鈥渕astery learning鈥� approach and Keller鈥檚 Personalized System of Instruction. The features they highlighted in those two approaches are directly echoed in much of the conversation around personalized learning today:
- In both models, it was seen as critical to give students a clear idea of where they were going/what they were expected to learn.
- Each task was broken into smaller units of learning. Instruction would then focus on each individual step, with student understanding being tested at each checkpoint along the way.
- Teachers were expected to provide immediate feedback to students upon the completion of tests at each step.
- It was seen as critical that individual students were provided with the time they needed to learn each component task, even if they took more (or less) time than their peers (in other words, self-pacing.)
- It was seen as important that students were provided 鈥渁lternative learning opportunities鈥� if an initial strategy was not working.
Keller鈥檚 approach emphasized cooperative learning among students, rather than individual consumption of information from a teacher. It also emphasized that students not be penalized for any errors, and that lectures and demonstrations be used for motivation, rather than to provide information (a kind of descendant of the modern 鈥渇lipped classroom.鈥�)
Neither approach relied on technology鈥� they were founded well before the advent of the personal computer.
But both were controversial, Block and Burns wrote:
鈥淐ritics ... assert that mastery approaches to instruction are rigid, mechanistic, training strategies; that they can only give students the simple skills required to survive in a closed society; and that they do not appreciate the complexities of school learning.鈥�
Such skepticism likely sounds familiar to many of the parents and activists raising concern about personalized learning now.
Did 鈥榤astery learning鈥� work?
Based on their review of existing research at the time, Block and Burns concluded that yes, 鈥渕astery-taught students have exhibited greater learning, on the average, than their nonmastery-taught counterparts.鈥�
The researchers also held out hope that such approaches would be particularly helpful in aiding 鈥渟lower students to learn more like faster students do.鈥�
It鈥檚 important, however, to note that the studies included in this review involved college students, not K-12 students. The focus was 鈥渓ower-order cognitive behaviors,鈥� such as understanding introductory textbooks.
And a decade later, a researcher named Robert Slavin , saying that most of the studies included in Block鈥檚 and Burns鈥� review focused on teacher-developed measures, not standardized assessments of student learning. Slavin also noted that giving some students a lot more instructional time may very well have been the factor that led to increased performance 鈥攏ot the nature of the instruction itself.
鈥淪imply receiving frequent and immediate feedback on performance may account for a substantial portion of the mastery learning effect,鈥� Slavin wrote.
Overall, Slavin maintained, his findings 鈥渄o not support the [claim] that mastery learning is more effective than traditional instruction given equal time and achievement measures that assess coverage as well as mastery.鈥�
The debate continued for years, without a definitive resolution.
What does it mean for today?
Over the past 40 years, of course, technology, has changed things quite a bit.
鈥淭oday, computers have the capacity to not only vary the pace [of material], but also the content, how much is presented, and, with adaptive [products], even the difficulty,鈥� said Steven Ross, a research scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins University.
鈥淲e now have intelligent systems in which computers can figure out what a student鈥檚 misconception is and present remedial material,鈥� he said.
But the underlying theory and instructional practices found in contemporary 鈥減ersonalized-learning鈥� classrooms are often quite similar to those found in 鈥渕astery-based鈥� classrooms of the 鈥�60s and 鈥�70s, Ross said. There is still too often an emphasis on drill-and-practice teaching, and rote memorization and regurgitation of information is still too often prioritized over deeper, more critical thinking.
That鈥檚 not necessarily a bad thing鈥攊n some situations and circumstances, drill-and-practice still has a role to play. And there鈥檚 some reason to believe鈥攆rom research both old and new鈥攖hat technology can make that process more efficient, personalized, and effective.
But limiting 鈥減ersonalized learning鈥� to drill-and-practice isn鈥檛 enough, Ross said.
鈥淢ost products work in certain contexts,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey can provide additional tools that teachers can choose from.鈥�
See also: