Enhancing Personalized Learning
Emilie Flores
Ms. Smelser
English 10H LEAD
8 May 2013
Advancing Personalized Learning
The fundamentals of learning have constantly been changing, and it is crucial that the learning practice be as effective as possible. “In these Countries where prosperity is the norm there is no longer a large economic incentive to learn, so the motivation to learn must become intrinsic….education must circle back to being personal again.” (Andersen 5). Advancing personalized learning is of top priority because there is much more to learning than what is currently being addressed in classes, everyone is at different stages and levels of education, and newly developed software is coming closer to allowing for the ultimate personalized learning experience. …show more content…
En Masse education, which is popularly used today, is not necessarily the best means of educating the masses of people in the world. For example, Julie Evans states, “learning is not being tailored to the individual’s needs and … students are not getting the appropriate level of attention from their teacher because there are too many students” (Evans 4). This shows that individuals’ needs should be recognized because if students had the appropriate amount of attention, their questions would go answered and their understanding of a specific subject would be fulfilled. It is also apparent that class sizes should be reduced because if individuals do not have the attention they need, there are far too many students in the classroom. Another expert, Maria Anderson notices that, “it’s only been in the last two centuries that we’ve used formalized systems of mass public education…in 1984, educational researcher Benjamin Bloom found that…students who were tutored one-on-one out performed 98% of students…learning via conventional methods” (Andersen 5). Therefore, studies have already proven one-on-one tutoring far more effective than what is currently being used, and the general public needs to implement this to improve students’ comprehension. Perhaps the usage of massive education systems is a step backwards in our intellectual advancements over the past two centuries. This aroused controversy, and intellectuals responded with, “a… ‘quality control’ model of educators is possible. Eventually,…a principal might [be] giving more money to teachers with high scores and firing the ones whose scores are too low-- just as in any other business” (Bejerede 2). This shows that if teachers had the incentive, they would most likely give students the proper attention they needed because it served their own purpose. Teachers who failed to meet the given scores and standards will be fired, and as a result only credible teachers would be available for future students, actually improving educational conditions. These facts have confirmed that in order to improve the learning process, teachers must appeal to each individual and potentially need the incentive to do so.
Learning cannot be done by simply doing as told, but in order to learn, one must be prepared to learn. “A student’s ability to demonstrate a year’s worth of academic growth depends on more factors than their academic starting point. Is the student emotionally physically, cognitively, and socially ready to learn?” (Bejerede 2). This brings up a key issue that most instructors neglect to take into consideration; their students may not be “prepared” to learn. Personal issues and inhibitions can be cumbersome and delay the learning process, but these can be addressed with solutions as simple as public speaking practice, counseling, etc. “Sufficiently sophisticated…measures would account for student needs beyond academic instruction” (Bejerede 2). That is, to simply accept and absorb monotonic information and standards is not the way to get through to eager pupils. Modern and advancing learning criteria require the professor to know and understand how the student learns best. “To develop a personal learning system is to abandon thinking about how to build it from within the existing educational system and to begin pondering how such a system could be developed outside of education” (Anderson 5). Once again, there is so much more to learning than what is currently addressed, and this evidence comes to show that the fundamentals for teaching are so tightly woven that means of personalization must be put into practice by teachers themselves. Furthermore, it reveals that the instructor must be creative when developing a personal learning system. Students must be “prepared” to learn, and professors and teachers should consider novelistic means of appealing to each student by developing a personal learning system.
It is difficult for all students to understand a lesson in unison when they are each at different levels of education. This is made evident when research shows that, “The teacher is now teaching to multiple tests depending on the many different starting points represented by the students at the beginning of the year” (Bejerede 2). This shows that students all start at different levels in the beginning of the year, and it is imperative that the teacher take note of each student’s level of knowledge. As a matter of fact, they should go so far as to divide classes and arrange students by the level of education they represented during this time to benefit both students and teachers. “Educators are being asked to help students become question-creators and knowledge-seekers rather than compliant order-takers and rote performers…[and to] help students develop integrated skill sets deeper than what can be assessed by a single high-stakes test” (Bejerede 2). Standards are being raised, and students need to learn to be open-minded and find not only answers, but questions. It is true that students have to apply their knowledge and perform accordingly, but they must also develop learning skills to enhance their learning experience. It is vital that the teacher gradually impend their roles onto the student because the new independence becomes the key source of their learning (Bray 3). In order for education to get as personalized as possible, the learner themselves must become responsible for directing their own learning. This ensures that they develop true independence and use only what works best for them. So, in order to reach every student at their various levels, they need to learn to drive their own learning and develop their own integrated set of skills rather than be “rote performers” (Bejerede 2).
Aside from the various levels of education, students learn in many different ways, and all learning is systematic process. As written by Sandra Brookhart, “…there are three main types of learning styles: auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. Most people learn best through a combination of the three types of learning styles, but everybody is different” (Brookhart para1). This comes to show that most teachers do not take into account the way each individual learns best; whether they are visual, audio, or kinesthetic learners. Maybe classes need to be divided not just by the various levels of displayed knowledge, but by the different ways there are of learning. Also, professors analyzed that, “For deep learning to occur, we need to have repeated exposure to the information, along with some time in between for reflection” (Andersen 5). In other words, even though everyone learns differently, constant practice appeals to all learning types. Learning is a very uniform process, but, if the appropriate actions are taken, it can be made to suit the individuals and their own learning preferences. It was concluded that, “[Learning is defined as] a constant disruption of an old pattern, a breakthrough that substitutes something new for something old in a cyclical process” (Garry 1). Regardless of any personalization methods, education is only possible if the key learning fundamentals are still put to use. Therefore, personalized learning systems must be built outside existing educational systems, but within clearly defined boundaries. All of these facts proved that maybe there are different styles of learners and starting points, but in the end, the very foundation of learning must remain intact.
In order to jump start personalization process, teachers need the resources and the technological power to do so. This was added on by Garry who stated, “We need to connect disparate learning systems together to support a personalized approach…(e.g. data dashboards, grade books,…digital assets, books and professional learning networks)” (Garry 2). It is clear that educational systems have everything that they need for a personalized approach; educators just need to use what they already have to put it into effect. All of the given examples were digitally based, so maybe that is the key to personalization. “Elementary parents and administrators … overwhelmingly rank it [technology] as extremely important. [It is] a tool to help students learn at their own pace” (Evans 4). This shows that technology is a major asset in educating the masses. It reveals how technology has also been recognized to teach students at a pace where they are getting their learning done without rushing through a lesson, a common mistake in the world of education. “Teachers…can create a learning toolkit for their class that offers strategies, resources and tools that can support the variability of learners for a variety of learning activities” (Bray 3). The use of an electronically based educational system seems to have a solution to the seemingly infinite amount needs required by this world of unique learners. This also discloses how scientific know-how potentially has the answer to a variety of problems including: different starting points, different style learners, and advancing personalized learning in general. With the advancements and what has been recently studied, educators might just have exactly what they need without even realizing it.
Technology already incorporates personalization in software that is commonly used on a daily basis.
Confirming this, intellectuals stated, “When I think of the word ‘personalized’ I immediately think of Amazon and Google…using my past search behavior” (Garry 1). This displays how experts unknowingly are coming up with the groundwork for building a personal education system. What is stopping them from building on these accomplishments and achieving what engineers have gawked over for years? Also, “The Speak Up National Research Project’s Fall 2011 findings revealed that students…are seeking a high level of personalization that will engage and motivate them” (Evans 4). Not only are current discoveries applying means of personalization, but students recognize it and want to see it fully executed. This motivation may give experts the extra push they need to fully develop an individual based learning system. “Dreambox [learning math software] learning…helps students reach their full potential by providing a data-driven personalized learning environment and a just-right level of instruction.” (Bray 4). This shows that there are solutions readily available, and experts are already taking the initiative. This only pertains to math, therefore educators still await personalized educational systems for the remaining other curricula. Though personalization has already begun to be applied as far as educating, there is still much that needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of learning in schools all around the
world.
All in all, personalized learning is more than compliantly taking orders, the variety of stages and levels of learning must be adhered to, and the developed technology is nearly reaching this goal. If engineers were to truly advance personalized learning, student’s scores would sky rocket and this new acquisition of educated personnel could develop how to provide access to clean water, how to provide energy from fusion, and create cognitive thinkers who have what it takes to find the answers to the grand challenges engineers have yet to overcome. The benefits of advancing personalized learning are nearly infinite, and the future of the world will be driven by their great minds and become something phenomenal.
Ms. Smelser
English 10H LEAD
8 May 2013
Advancing Personalized Learning
The fundamentals of learning have constantly been changing, and it is crucial that the learning practice be as effective as possible. “In these Countries where prosperity is the norm there is no longer a large economic incentive to learn, so the motivation to learn must become intrinsic….education must circle back to being personal again.” (Andersen 5). Advancing personalized learning is of top priority because there is much more to learning than what is currently being addressed in classes, everyone is at different stages and levels of education, and newly developed software is coming closer to allowing for the ultimate personalized learning experience. …show more content…
En Masse education, which is popularly used today, is not necessarily the best means of educating the masses of people in the world. For example, Julie Evans states, “learning is not being tailored to the individual’s needs and … students are not getting the appropriate level of attention from their teacher because there are too many students” (Evans 4). This shows that individuals’ needs should be recognized because if students had the appropriate amount of attention, their questions would go answered and their understanding of a specific subject would be fulfilled. It is also apparent that class sizes should be reduced because if individuals do not have the attention they need, there are far too many students in the classroom. Another expert, Maria Anderson notices that, “it’s only been in the last two centuries that we’ve used formalized systems of mass public education…in 1984, educational researcher Benjamin Bloom found that…students who were tutored one-on-one out performed 98% of students…learning via conventional methods” (Andersen 5). Therefore, studies have already proven one-on-one tutoring far more effective than what is currently being used, and the general public needs to implement this to improve students’ comprehension. Perhaps the usage of massive education systems is a step backwards in our intellectual advancements over the past two centuries. This aroused controversy, and intellectuals responded with, “a… ‘quality control’ model of educators is possible. Eventually,…a principal might [be] giving more money to teachers with high scores and firing the ones whose scores are too low-- just as in any other business” (Bejerede 2). This shows that if teachers had the incentive, they would most likely give students the proper attention they needed because it served their own purpose. Teachers who failed to meet the given scores and standards will be fired, and as a result only credible teachers would be available for future students, actually improving educational conditions. These facts have confirmed that in order to improve the learning process, teachers must appeal to each individual and potentially need the incentive to do so.
Learning cannot be done by simply doing as told, but in order to learn, one must be prepared to learn. “A student’s ability to demonstrate a year’s worth of academic growth depends on more factors than their academic starting point. Is the student emotionally physically, cognitively, and socially ready to learn?” (Bejerede 2). This brings up a key issue that most instructors neglect to take into consideration; their students may not be “prepared” to learn. Personal issues and inhibitions can be cumbersome and delay the learning process, but these can be addressed with solutions as simple as public speaking practice, counseling, etc. “Sufficiently sophisticated…measures would account for student needs beyond academic instruction” (Bejerede 2). That is, to simply accept and absorb monotonic information and standards is not the way to get through to eager pupils. Modern and advancing learning criteria require the professor to know and understand how the student learns best. “To develop a personal learning system is to abandon thinking about how to build it from within the existing educational system and to begin pondering how such a system could be developed outside of education” (Anderson 5). Once again, there is so much more to learning than what is currently addressed, and this evidence comes to show that the fundamentals for teaching are so tightly woven that means of personalization must be put into practice by teachers themselves. Furthermore, it reveals that the instructor must be creative when developing a personal learning system. Students must be “prepared” to learn, and professors and teachers should consider novelistic means of appealing to each student by developing a personal learning system.
It is difficult for all students to understand a lesson in unison when they are each at different levels of education. This is made evident when research shows that, “The teacher is now teaching to multiple tests depending on the many different starting points represented by the students at the beginning of the year” (Bejerede 2). This shows that students all start at different levels in the beginning of the year, and it is imperative that the teacher take note of each student’s level of knowledge. As a matter of fact, they should go so far as to divide classes and arrange students by the level of education they represented during this time to benefit both students and teachers. “Educators are being asked to help students become question-creators and knowledge-seekers rather than compliant order-takers and rote performers…[and to] help students develop integrated skill sets deeper than what can be assessed by a single high-stakes test” (Bejerede 2). Standards are being raised, and students need to learn to be open-minded and find not only answers, but questions. It is true that students have to apply their knowledge and perform accordingly, but they must also develop learning skills to enhance their learning experience. It is vital that the teacher gradually impend their roles onto the student because the new independence becomes the key source of their learning (Bray 3). In order for education to get as personalized as possible, the learner themselves must become responsible for directing their own learning. This ensures that they develop true independence and use only what works best for them. So, in order to reach every student at their various levels, they need to learn to drive their own learning and develop their own integrated set of skills rather than be “rote performers” (Bejerede 2).
Aside from the various levels of education, students learn in many different ways, and all learning is systematic process. As written by Sandra Brookhart, “…there are three main types of learning styles: auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. Most people learn best through a combination of the three types of learning styles, but everybody is different” (Brookhart para1). This comes to show that most teachers do not take into account the way each individual learns best; whether they are visual, audio, or kinesthetic learners. Maybe classes need to be divided not just by the various levels of displayed knowledge, but by the different ways there are of learning. Also, professors analyzed that, “For deep learning to occur, we need to have repeated exposure to the information, along with some time in between for reflection” (Andersen 5). In other words, even though everyone learns differently, constant practice appeals to all learning types. Learning is a very uniform process, but, if the appropriate actions are taken, it can be made to suit the individuals and their own learning preferences. It was concluded that, “[Learning is defined as] a constant disruption of an old pattern, a breakthrough that substitutes something new for something old in a cyclical process” (Garry 1). Regardless of any personalization methods, education is only possible if the key learning fundamentals are still put to use. Therefore, personalized learning systems must be built outside existing educational systems, but within clearly defined boundaries. All of these facts proved that maybe there are different styles of learners and starting points, but in the end, the very foundation of learning must remain intact.
In order to jump start personalization process, teachers need the resources and the technological power to do so. This was added on by Garry who stated, “We need to connect disparate learning systems together to support a personalized approach…(e.g. data dashboards, grade books,…digital assets, books and professional learning networks)” (Garry 2). It is clear that educational systems have everything that they need for a personalized approach; educators just need to use what they already have to put it into effect. All of the given examples were digitally based, so maybe that is the key to personalization. “Elementary parents and administrators … overwhelmingly rank it [technology] as extremely important. [It is] a tool to help students learn at their own pace” (Evans 4). This shows that technology is a major asset in educating the masses. It reveals how technology has also been recognized to teach students at a pace where they are getting their learning done without rushing through a lesson, a common mistake in the world of education. “Teachers…can create a learning toolkit for their class that offers strategies, resources and tools that can support the variability of learners for a variety of learning activities” (Bray 3). The use of an electronically based educational system seems to have a solution to the seemingly infinite amount needs required by this world of unique learners. This also discloses how scientific know-how potentially has the answer to a variety of problems including: different starting points, different style learners, and advancing personalized learning in general. With the advancements and what has been recently studied, educators might just have exactly what they need without even realizing it.
Technology already incorporates personalization in software that is commonly used on a daily basis.
Confirming this, intellectuals stated, “When I think of the word ‘personalized’ I immediately think of Amazon and Google…using my past search behavior” (Garry 1). This displays how experts unknowingly are coming up with the groundwork for building a personal education system. What is stopping them from building on these accomplishments and achieving what engineers have gawked over for years? Also, “The Speak Up National Research Project’s Fall 2011 findings revealed that students…are seeking a high level of personalization that will engage and motivate them” (Evans 4). Not only are current discoveries applying means of personalization, but students recognize it and want to see it fully executed. This motivation may give experts the extra push they need to fully develop an individual based learning system. “Dreambox [learning math software] learning…helps students reach their full potential by providing a data-driven personalized learning environment and a just-right level of instruction.” (Bray 4). This shows that there are solutions readily available, and experts are already taking the initiative. This only pertains to math, therefore educators still await personalized educational systems for the remaining other curricula. Though personalization has already begun to be applied as far as educating, there is still much that needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of learning in schools all around the
world.
All in all, personalized learning is more than compliantly taking orders, the variety of stages and levels of learning must be adhered to, and the developed technology is nearly reaching this goal. If engineers were to truly advance personalized learning, student’s scores would sky rocket and this new acquisition of educated personnel could develop how to provide access to clean water, how to provide energy from fusion, and create cognitive thinkers who have what it takes to find the answers to the grand challenges engineers have yet to overcome. The benefits of advancing personalized learning are nearly infinite, and the future of the world will be driven by their great minds and become something phenomenal.