Читать книгу When They Already Know It - Tami Williams - Страница 9

Оглавление

CHAPTER 2

Personalized Learning

Educators are beginning to use the term personalized learning more and more frequently. In fact, our colleagues note it is not uncommon to see a reference to personalized learning in district strategic plans, journal articles, and books. As we have worked with and for school districts that have implemented approaches that deliberately put students at the center of learning and intentionally plan for how they will respond to proficient students, we have seen engagement and achievement flourish. Teachers and administrators who have embraced concepts such as personalized learning, Genius Hour, and schoolwide enrichment have an advantage in addressing PLC critical question 4 because they have had practice in using these methods that are beneficial to question 4 students’ extension. Therefore, we believe the five elements of personalized learning serve as a wonderful foundation for framing how your collaborative team addresses question 4. In this chapter, we will clarify the concept of personalized learning by defining the term, address misconceptions, outline the five elements we identify as comprising this approach to teaching and learning, and discuss the research and realities that support using this approach in your classrooms and schools.

Definition of Personalized Learning

Personalized learning can mean many different things to many different people. Is it a free-for-all where students come in and do whatever they want? Is it using a series of packets that students complete one after another? Is it a personal learning plan? Is it offering classes online with 24-7 access? A grandparent at a community forum we attended may have summed up the confusion best when she asked, “If my grandson wants to learn about clowns all day, can he just do that and forget about math?” To her, personalized learning sounded loose and unstructured, with little direction, and not tied to the standards and indicators of the content being taught. We can assure you that this is not the type of personalized learning we espouse.

Take a moment before you read any further in this chapter to reflect on what your definition is for personalized learning (and, please, leave out any references to clowns). When you reconvene with your collaborative team, share your definitions. In what ways are your definitions similar or different?

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

Without reading any further in this chapter, how do you define personalized learning?

If you struggle with a definition, you are in good company. In fact, EdSurge columnist Alex Hernandez (2016) writes that personalized learning is so difficult to pin down, perhaps we should stop trying to develop a definition. We, however, would argue that developing a common vocabulary and set of elements has truly been the key to our growth in this area.

Also, if yours is like other teams, your conversations may reflect a difficulty in determining the difference between traditional differentiation, individualized learning, and personalized learning. Personalize Learning, LLC, founders Barbara Bray and Kathleen McClaskey (2015) offer a wonderful chart and exercise in their book Make Learning Personal: The What, Who, WOW, Where, and Why (see table 2.1). They (Bray & McClaskey, 2015) break down the differences between differentiation, individualized learning, and personalized learning into ten categories.

Individualized instruction is what takes place when the teacher provides accommodations and customization to the individual learner. Even when individualization takes place with technology in an anytime, anyplace format, it is still the teacher who assigns the tasks (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017). Differentiated instruction is what takes place when the teacher provides accommodations and customization to groups of learners. Again, the teacher still assigns the tasks. Personalized learning is what happens when the teacher provides groups and individuals with accommodations and customization but the learners help drive their own learning.

Table 2.1: Differentiation Versus Individualization Versus Personalization Chart

Differentiation	Individualization	Personalization
The Teacher …	The Teacher …	The Learner …
Provides instruction to groups of learners	Provides instruction to an individual learner	Drives his or her own learning
Adjusts to learning needs for groups of learners	Accommodates learning needs of the individual learner	Connects learning with his or her interests, talents, passions, and aspirations
Designs instruction based on the learning needs of different groups of learners	Customizes instruction based on the learning needs of the individual learner	Actively participates in the design of his or her learning
Is responsible for a variety of instruction for different groups of learners	Is responsible for modifying instruction based on the needs of the individual learner	Owns and is responsible for his or her learning that includes voice and choice on how and what he or she learns
Identifies the same objectives for different groups of learners as he or she does for the whole class	Identifies the same objectives for all learners with specific objectives for each individual who receives one-to-one support	Identifies goals for his or her learning plan and benchmarks as he or she progresses along his or her learning path with guidance from teachers
Selects technology and resources to support the learning needs of different groups of learners	Selects technology and resources to support the learning needs of the individual learner	Acquires the skills to select and use the appropriate technology and resources to support and enhance his or her learning
Supports groups of learners reliant on him or her for the learning	Understands the individual learner is dependent on him or her to support the learning	Builds a network of peers, experts, and teachers to guide and support his or her learning
Monitors learning based on the Carnegie unit (seat time) and grade level	Monitors learning based on the Carnegie unit (seat time) and grade level	Demonstrates his or her mastery of content in a competency-based system
Uses data and assessments to modify instruction for groups of learners and provides feedback to individual learners to advance learning	Uses data and assessments to measure progress of what the individual learner learned and did not learn to decide next steps in the learning	Becomes a self-directed expert learner who monitors progress and reflects on learning based on his or her mastery of content and skills
Uses assessment of and for learning	Uses assessment of learning	Uses assessment as and for learning with minimal assessment of learning

Source: Adapted from Bray & McClaskey, 2015, pp. 9–10.

Even though this chart (see table 2.1) highlights differences, we should note that these three concepts are deeply connected. Carol Ann Tomlinson (2017), the guru on differentiated instruction, refers to personalized learning as a type of differentiated instruction. Andrew Easton (2016), a teacher who works for a midwestern school district as a personalized learning collaborator, offers an interesting perspective on the relationship between these three key themes. He explains that personalized learning is differentiated and individualized instruction on steroids (Easton, 2016).

The key distinction between personalized learning versus differentiation and individualization is students have voice and choice in what they are learning. To us, the linchpin of personalized learning is voice and choice (one of the five elements we discuss in the next section) and how teachers use it in conjunction with the other elements. That being said, our definition of personalized learning is this: an instructional approach designed to nurture learners to discover and broaden the ways in which they learn best so that they become independent learners committed to their learning by encouraging student choice, voice, and interests to master the highest standards possible in a relational environment.

A Misunderstood Concept

As we’ve noted, personalized learning can mean many different things to many different people. While there is a great deal of momentum around personalized learning, Benjamin Herold (2017) explores in an EdWeek article three main critiques educators and policy makers have expressed regarding this learning philosophy: (1) the hype outweighs the research, (2) personalized learning is bad for teachers and students, and (3) big tech + big data = big problems. We’d like to offer our perspective on the points this article raises.

The hype outweighs the research. Some educators are unreceptive to personalized learning because there is not a definitive set of research to demonstrate its effectiveness. While the RAND Corporation has done some research in this area, it has not developed studies to cite conclusive evidence. Also, this topic becomes hard to study because the term personalized learning means different things to different people.

While there is not a definitive set of research on this topic, Herold (2017) highlights that there is a great deal of research that supports the fundamentals of personalized learning, which include giving students control over their own learning, differentiating instruction for each student, and providing real-time feedback.

Personalized learning is bad for teachers and students. Many educators are under the impression personalized learning is really just putting learning on the computer where tasks are broken down into smaller segments and students quietly proceed through a program until they reach completion at their own pace. They are concerned that if this is what personalized learning is, it does not offer an inspiring education experience. Herold (2017) notes that until personalized learning can figure out “the appropriate role for software in the classroom, how much autonomy is best for student learning, and the challenge of maintaining high standards and social interaction when every student is pursuing his or her own path,” these concerns will remain high.

We agree that personalized learning is an often misunderstood topic. The difficult thing is that one person might feel it is a computer program that students work through at their own pace and another feels it is a way of thinking when designing classrooms, activities, or units in a way that works in parallel with the teacher, and they are both correct. There is not one universally agreed-on definition. However, to us, personalized learning is the latter of these two conceptualizations. It is teachers philosophically and collaboratively developing instructional strategies that incorporate concepts such as knowing your learner, allowing voice and choice, providing flexibility, using data, and integrating technology. Personalized learning is not, to us, students working on a computer program on their own in the corner of the classroom.

Big tech + big data = big problems. To some, personalized learning means a large emphasis on data hardware and software, which involves technology companies. For example, Mark and Chan Zuckerberg have pledged to invest millions of dollars into the initiative. With this type of involvement, Herold (2017) notes there are concerns about sacrificing student privacy and asks, if students are entering detailed information about their thoughts, preferences, hopes, and fears, is that something we are OK with? Herold (2017) also raises the question of whether it is appropriate to have formulas and algorithms to determine what students are learning.

Big data and algorithms are not a part of any conversation regarding the personalized learning that we promote in this book or the schools and districts we highlight throughout this book that are using this approach. It is a philosophy and way of thinking for classroom teachers and is not intended to replace the teacher in any way.

It is important to note when studying personalized learning that there are many misconceptions and misunderstandings around this topic. In the following sections, we will describe in detail our view of this concept to ensure that all readers understand personalized learning as we envision and intend it.

The Five Elements of Personalized Learning

While working with groups of teachers implementing personalized learning, we reached a key turning point when we broke down the definition and understanding into smaller parts we call the five elements of personalized learning. These elements serve as the framework for the subsequent chapters in this book.

1. Knowing your learners

2. Allowing voice and choice

3. Implementing flexibility

4. Using data

5. Integrating technology

It is important to note that implementing one of these elements in isolation is not personalized learning. Typically, it takes combinations of the elements to come together to create personalized learning. Grouping students or rearranging furniture does not make a lesson personalized; however, it might be if you discover where students are in their learning with a preassessment and then establish opportunities for voice and choice by offering tiered learning activities to meet the learner at his or her level based on how he or she performed.

Teachers working in collaborative teams will be able to better address critical question 4 if they make it a regular part of their time together and frame their critical question 4 conversations around the five elements of personalized learning. In most cases, question 4 students have likely proven through various traditional methods that they are ready for extension by their performance in class. When this occurs, customization for the individual learner is just a natural fit as their learning needs to move beyond what the teacher intended and planned for every student. Personalized learning provides the framework and discussion starters for teams looking to determine what to do for this type of learner. It further encourages a classroom culture in which students are encouraged to stretch their learning, ingraining in students what Carol Dweck (2006) refers to as a growth mindset—a belief in the idea that intelligence can be developed rather than simply inherited. This philosophy and type of thinking goes beyond asking students to read quietly, help a struggling student, or just hang out while others get caught up. Personalized learning (and its five elements) is a wonderful tool to ensure question 4 students in every grade band from kindergarten through senior year are successfully extending their learning beyond the learning targets.

The Case for Personalized Learning

When leading conversations about why we advocate for personalized learning and its connection to question 4, we enjoy starting with a simple activity in which we ask participants to recall a time when they, as teachers, had students who were totally tuned out and unengaged with a lesson because they already knew the content, and a time when a student was ecstatic about and very engaged in what he or she was learning because the teacher respected what the student knew about the subject matter. For example, one author, Mark, remembers his first year of teaching eighth-grade American history. As perhaps many first-year teachers would, he wanted to follow the rules and be seen as a good teacher. Many of his units were geared around discussions and lecture about the textbook readings, which would typically be followed up with some sort of activity or simulation, and conclude with a type of assessment. There was one student who was an American Civil War enthusiast. When it came time for the units and activities around this topic, Mark didn’t quite know what to do with him. He would routinely interrupt the classroom conversations to share cool and interesting facts and bring in various artifacts he had collected. While the student was able to share his excitement and knowledge in some ways, there is no doubt that he was bored or at least not given an opportunity to shine or extend his learning. Looking back, we authors realize offering personalized learning opportunities based on the elements and strategies we feature in this book would have been far more valuable for this one student.

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

Think of a time when, as a teacher, a student you were working with was tuned out and unengaged with a lesson because he or she already knew the content.

We would argue that, like many question 4 students, Mark’s student played along with what the rest of the class was doing even though he personally didn’t get much out of it. He could have been far more engaged if his teacher had worked with a collaborative team that intentionally and deliberately planned for ways for him to extend his learning since he already knew the content. Perhaps this student could have presented on a certain battle or chosen an independent project to work on and develop over the three-week unit.

Conversely, we recall an example of heightened engagement when Mark was working with his son, who was learning about force and motion in his fourth-grade classroom. He had previously passed the classroom assessment, which covered the material during whole-group instruction. Not needing additional direct instruction, his son had the opportunity to extend his learning with an activity that was very similar to one done by sophomores in that district’s high school. The son brought home a balloon and said that by the end of the week, he needed to use household items to make a vehicle, and students would win prizes for the vehicles that went the farthest distance. The balloon would ultimately serve as the one energy source that would provide propulsion to the vehicle that he would be creating. For three days, the author watched his son perform various trial-and-error activities to get things just right. After using just the right aerodynamic box, pencils to serve as axles, and old CDs as wheels, the son proudly obtained a third-place finish out of about one hundred fourth graders who completed the activity. The boy profoundly commented, “I was just really proud of myself. I don’t know why. I want to do more of that kind of thing.” Interestingly, the next day, his kindergarten-age brother saw the excitement and energy in his older sibling and was busy making his own vehicle out of household items. Mark’s son was given an opportunity to show that he knew the material (which involves personalized learning elements of knowing learners and using data), was allowed to extend his learning, was given voice and choice in how he wanted to construct his vehicle (which involves voice and choice), used technology to generate ideas (which involves integrated technology), exercised a growth mindset as he went about multiple trial and errors to make sure his creation would be competitive (which involves flexibility), and got to share his final product in a competitive environment. If we can provide personalized learning opportunities like these to question 4 students, everyone wins.

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

Think of a time when a student you, as a teacher, were working with was excited and engaged with the content because he or she was allowed to extend his or her learning.

It’s likely that student you thought of in the preceding individual reflection was one who, when he or she was engaged, just worked—not because the student had to, but because he or she wanted to—and time passed quickly for the student. Learning didn’t just happen to this student; he or she took command of it. This is what researcher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2008) calls flow. Csikszentmihalyi (2008) finds that our best moments occur when we are completely absorbed in an activity, particularly when those activities help us explore our creativity. Flow describes that feeling people get when they are totally locked into a task and make progress with what feels like effortless movement (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).

As educators, we know what flow is, but it is a challenge to get to it. Using the five elements of personalized learning and making them a regular part of collaborative team discussions is a wonderful way to intentionally and deliberately create opportunities for students to be more engaged and extend their learning. In our experience, question 4 students who aren’t being challenged or given additional opportunities typically just play along to just get by with minimal effort, or find something else to keep their mind occupied. As educators, we would never allow this with struggling students. It is our job as professional educators to give all students an intentional and engaging learning plan.

With any change in an organization, it is important to start with the why (TEDx Talks, 2009). Along with our personal experiences of being engaged and unengaged, the reality that no student is average, the technology- and personalization-rich era in which today’s learners have been raised, the ways in which emotions impact learning, and the connections of personalized learning to deep research help make a strong case for why we advocate for personalized learning as a tool to extend learning.

The Myth of Average

The myth of average presents a compelling case for personalized learning. In a 2013 TED Talk, Todd Rose, a Harvard professor and former high school dropout, describes the design principles that guided the work of the U.S. Air Force in the early 1950s (TEDx Talks, 2013). The Air Force used fighter jets with cockpits made for the average pilot from the year 1926. Thinking that perhaps pilots were just bigger than they used to be, it was determined that new specifications for planes would be needed, based on ten different physical traits. Air Force researchers, at a base in Ohio, measured thousands of pilots to find this new average. In the end, not one of the 4,063 pilots was average in all ten categories. This finding transformed the way the Air Force began to builds jets (Rose, 2016).

The pilots might have been above average in some areas, average in others, and below in still others, so the manufacturers had developed jets for literally nobody. In a bold move, the Air Force called for companies who built planes to no longer build for the average but to design to the edges, which called for designing planes that could be personalized for pilots, so pilots of various sizes could fly (TEDx Talks, 2013). Because of the new cockpits, pilots were more successful and the pool for pilots expanded. Rose’s (TEDx Talks, 2013) presentation gets to the point: when you design for the average, you design for no one. Rose (TEDx Talks, 2013) then connects this story to education, noting that classrooms are the “cockpits of our economy.”

Often in education, we plan our instructional activities around what we consider to be the average. Teachers we know have shared with us that, realistically, in typical learning and lesson plan creation, whether alone or as a collaborative team, conversations center around average students who have struggled to learn the material. Hardly any mention is given to the question 4 student. When we plan in this way, we are not really planning for anyone. To further illustrate the myth of average, use the tool in figure 2.1 to rate your aptitude on several characteristics educators tend to value in students.

Figure 2.1: Personal rating exercise.

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/PLCbooks for a free reproducible version of this figure.

When we do this activity with groups of educators, it is interesting to see that those who consider themselves to be average are, like the pilots, not average in many areas. For those with an average overall score, it is not uncommon to see only one or two individual areas that actually represent the average. Our students are no different. So, like Rose (TEDx Talks, 2013) suggests, when we plan for the average or the middle, we are not serving the needs of anyone. Personalized learning is a wonderful way to consider designing to the edges.

Our Students’ Immersion in Technology

As of 2018, all K–12 educators teach students born after the year 2000. What are some personal characteristics you believe to be true about students today that are different from when you were a student?

The students of this generation have much different backgrounds and upbringings than many of the people reading this book. First, because these students have always had access to technology that quickly responds to their needs, they have had their entire lives personalized; they have been able to access anything they want at a moment’s notice in the way they want. A colleague of ours has a daughter with a 1998 birthday who is a college freshman. His daughter was born the year Google became available for public use. Students in college have literally not been alive for a day when they couldn’t just google the answer to a question. In fact, many young adults live their entire lives through social media; it didn’t happen if it wasn’t published to the world. Unlike this book’s authors’ generations, these students have full-text articles and books, and experts on social media just a click away.

Educators reading this book probably remember watching television shows like The Brady Bunch, Happy Days, Family Ties, or The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air with their families and also watching whatever their oldest siblings were watching. We remember when there was one TV in the house and the family watched together. Then, the youngest child in the family didn’t have a say in what to watch and was not allowed to change the channel to something else. Now, because of handheld technology, in some families the youngest doesn’t even use the main TV in the family room. They are watching another TV or are using their own devices, watching the shows they want when they want, with no commercials. Tom Murray (2017) calls this generation the Netflix Generation, a term to describe students who use newer platforms like Netflix and YouTube for entertainment. Murray (2017) makes the connection to this idea by calling out a challenge to our profession: “If our existing mindset is that our job (as teachers) is content delivery, we have to realize that we are being outsourced by YouTube.”

Nearly everything else with technology is personalized as well. We authors remember, when we were much younger, buying our music on tapes, records, and CDs and trying to enjoy all the songs that came on the album with the one hit song we actually liked. However, when we choose songs we like on iTunes, we don’t have to order the rest of the album, and as the app begins to learn our tastes in music, it shares potential songs to buy based on what it knows about us. If someone does a search for a product that he or she finds interesting, that person will suddenly see many ads appear with these items when he or she uses other sites such as social media. Netflix similarly recommends shows for us to watch based on what we’ve already viewed. Whether it is watching television, ordering products, or listening to music, we are all used to and expect personalization.

Emotions and Learning

As authors, we had the chance to sit in on a series of conversations with Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, associate professor of psychology at the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California. Mark and Blane enjoyed professional opportunities that allowed them to meet with Immordino-Yang on multiple occasions from 2015 to 2017 and speak with her personally on the topic of emotions and learning. In these conversations with us, Immordino-Yang convincingly shares that all learning is emotional (personal communications, 2015–2017). When educators recognize that people only think deeply about things they care about, it becomes clear that asking students to recite or recall facts may not be the most effective strategy. In fact, in her studies on individuals with certain brain injuries, Immordino-Yang (2016) finds that when learning is devoid of emotion, being able to apply what was learned in a novel situation does not happen (Damasio, 1999; Fischer & Bidell, 1998). In other words, proficient and advanced students who learn how to play the school game, sit quietly, and get through the traditional tasks of schools as quickly and efficiently as possible are likely going to struggle when it is time to apply their learning outside of school. Teaching and learning with the end goal of a good grade on the material from the book is less effective and lacks the emotional aspect of learning. This embodies the old saying that someone is “book smart, but not street smart.” To challenge and push learners, especially those question 4 students, it is our job to make learning emotional and to connect their learning to what they will need to know and be able to do outside of the classroom.

Emotion and cognition go hand in hand. In education, we ask students to learn, pay attention, remember, make decisions, motivate, and collaborate with others. Emotion affects all of these important learning factors. The question isn’t whether we should pay attention to emotions. For educators the question becomes, How do we leverage the emotional aspects of learning in education?

Immordino-Yang (2016) shares another key finding: the toggling that takes place when the brain is looking out (actively learning) or looking in (resting). While we all know the brain is never truly at rest (it is always working to keep us alive and manage biological functions necessary for life), we do have times when we turn off external stimuli and rest our brains to a certain degree. Daydreaming, reflecting, and just thinking are key components of what takes place when we turn off the external stimuli. In listening to and reading study after study (Buckner & Vincent, 2007; Esposito et al., 2006; Fox et al., 2005; Raichle et al., 2001; Seeley et al., 2007) cited in Immordino-Yang’s (2016) work, it seems logical to suggest that it is important for educators to consider providing students the opportunity to spend time looking out and looking in.

While we certainly don’t want to make a claim or post the headline that says, “Neuroscience says personalized learning works,” we do feel validated because what we know about the connection between emotions and learning supports the personalized learning strategies we describe in this book. In personalized learning, teachers give students opportunities to emotionally connect with what they are learning and time for self-reflection. Based on all that she has done in the field, we asked Immordino-Yang what her ideal classroom would look like. She shared that her ideal classroom, which would of course look different in each environment, would be one where all students are engaged and generally willing to share what they are doing. Students may say they are doing great, not doing great, or just doing OK, but they would know why this is so and what it would take to do better (M. Immordino-Yang, personal communication, April 2017). Immordino-Yang also said in her ideal environment, the teacher would be able to tell you one thing about which each student is an expert. To us, this sounds a lot like personalized learning.

Research on Personalized Learning

While there is not a great deal of research about personalized learning, the limited extant research is promising. Some specific studies include a 2014 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation report featuring RAND Corporation research and a 2015 follow-up report (Pane, Steiner, Baird, & Hamilton, 2015). The two-year study (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2014) includes five thousand students attending twenty-three charter schools that began implementing personalized learning in 2012. There are some promising results, as gains in mathematics and reading scores are significantly higher than a comparison group’s. Effect sizes are .41 in reading and .29 in mathematics (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2014). Note that effect sizes allow researchers looking at others’ work to compare their results, even if they used different statistical measures. Effect size predicts whether or not the strategy would work and it helps predict how much range in the scenarios.

In a 2015 follow-up report, the RAND Corporation uses a larger study of sixty-two schools involving more than eleven thousand students, which again reveals gains in mathematics (.27) and reading (.19) when compared to control groups (Pane et al., 2015). Perhaps even more promising, the 2015 report states the schools in the original study continue to see gains, and those who had the most growth are students who began with lower achievement levels. A 2017 report (Pane, Steiner, Baird, Hamilton, & Pane, 2017) notes that schools that were awarded funding through the NGLC (Next Generation Learning Challenges) experienced positive achievement effects in mathematics and reading, with statistical significance in reading, and that levels of achievement relative to grade-level norms appeared to benefit.

Additionally, Jim Rickabaugh shares impressive data about work from districts in Wisconsin (J. Rickabaugh, personal communication, March 4, 2017). He notes that in an unpublished report from the Institute for Personalized Learning, where he serves as senior advisor, there are specific examples from three different districts showing increases in projected growth in areas such as mathematics and reading on Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress tests after incorporating personalized learning strategies. In the study cited in this report, all seventh-grade students were evaluated by how they performed on the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments. This is significant, as even the top-performing students were measured for academic growth. In this example, 73.6 percent of the students saw growth in their own learning. In another middle school implementing personalized learning strategies, a significant number of students completed top-level mathematics courses and were ready for precalculus when they entered high school. In yet another middle school, a district with scores typically above the eighth-grade norm-referenced test, data indicate that at each grade level at the middle school, students, even the top performers, showed an average 25 percent growth in college readiness in English, mathematics, reading, and science. The report also shares qualitative findings that reference the power of personalized learning.

While it would be wonderful to have a broader range of research that specifically ties to personalized learning, the best case for the topic comes from Professor John A. C. Hattie’s (2009, 2015) work, which includes a great deal of deep research that reflects the underpinnings of personalized learning. Hattie, who many consider to be the most influential education researcher, regularly updates a ranked list of the influences that impact student learning (Visible Learning, n.d.b). Of the top items, we find the ones in the following list to be in direct alignment with personalized learning. Note the numbers in parentheses are the effect sizes. Hattie determines that the average effect size of all the strategies or interventions is 0.40. The list ranges from 1.62 (teacher estimates of achievement) at the top to -0.9 (physical influences of ADHD) at the bottom.

■ Teacher estimates of achievement (1.62): Teachers knowing their learners, developing a plan to ensure student success, and then following the plan

■ Self-reported grades (1.33): Teachers getting to know learners by learning what the students’ expectations are, and then working with the students to exceed them

■ Cognitive task analysis (1.29): Instructional strategies that require a lot of cognitive activity from the learner and include items such as decision making, problem solving, memory, attention, and judgment

■ Strategy to integrate with prior knowledge (.93): In order to acquire deeper learning, deliberately activating prior knowledge and then making relations and extensions beyond what students have learned at the surface phase

■ Teacher credibility (.90): Students’ perception about whether or not the teacher is high quality

■ Teacher clarity (.75): Teachers providing a clear explanation about what is expected of students (goals and success criteria) before providing instruction

■ Feedback (.70): Teachers providing immediate feedback, which aligns very closely with formative assessment, to learners to maximize student learning; this also includes feedback from the student to the teacher

While these items do not specifically mention personalized learning, the teacher actions they describe are in close alignment with the five elements of personalized learning you will learn about in the upcoming chapters. It is hard to argue against personalized learning when deep research so clearly aligns with this work.

Further, in conversations with teachers who are implementing personalized learning, we continually see and hear about how it ignites student learning. It is hard to measure what a teacher is telling us when she says, “I just feel it”; the students’ energy, engagement, and excitement to learn are palpable.

Just as important, the students aren’t the only ones who benefit from this approach. In reference to personalized learning, one teacher we spoke with stated, “The spark is back.” The teachers we talk to are enjoying their roles as mentors and team members in the learning process. Not all learning has to come from the front of the classroom.

Next Steps

At this point, you and your team have developed some common definitions and understandings around personalized learning and why you should consider implementing it. In the upcoming chapters, you will learn specifics about each of the five elements of personalized learning to better support your understanding of this topic, which will provide you with tools to address PLC critical question 4. Before you move on to the next chapter, use the reproducible “Individual Reflection: Ranking Reasons for Personalized Learning” to reflect on the arguments this chapter makes for using personalized learning. Then, as a collaborative team, use the reproducible “Collaborative Team Discussion: Personalized Learning” (page 46) to reflect on how your team defines personalized learning, your examples of engagement and lack of engagement, and your thoughts regarding the arguments for personalized learning.

Individual Reflection: Ranking Reasons for Personalized Learning

Rank the following items that argue for implementing personalized learning from first to fifth based on which you think makes the best case.

——— My own examples of being engaged or unengaged

——— The myth of average

——— The age of our students

——— Emotions

——— Research studies

What resonates with you about your top-ranked item?

Do you think your top-ranked item also resonates with others on your team?

What item did you rank last? What is it about this item that causes you to provide a low ranking?

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/PLCbooks to download this free reproducible.

Collaborative Team Discussion: Personalized Learning

Definition of Personalized Learning

How did your collaborative team members’ definitions of personalized learning compare? How are they similar? How are they different?

Engaged and Unengaged Examples

In the examples the authors provide of their own experiences with students being engaged and unengaged, there is a profound difference between a student (such as the Civil War buff) sitting and waiting for an opportunity to explore and be challenged in an area of passion, and a student feeling pride in his or her accomplishments. List the differences your team sees in your own examples.

The Why of Personalized Learning

Collectively, when looking at your rankings of arguments for personalized learning, how did your rankings compare to others’ on your team?

Does your team think the arguments in this chapter make a strong-enough case to continue to learn about how personalized learning relates to PLC critical question 4? Why or why not?

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/PLCbooks to download this free reproducible.

Подняться наверх