Education is being juggled more than ever between pedagogy and corporate control AND it is personal — for you — for me — for our children.
The marketing strategy of adaptive learning systems is that of 24/7 services that you can access at any time, in any place and at any pace. Education has adopted this language to reduce costs with business-like customization and streamlined productivity. The expectation is for a flexible education system that will also be more efficient and cost effective.
[Source: Rebirth of the Teaching Machine Through the Seduction of Data Analytics: This Time It’s Personal by Phil McRae]
“The adaptive learning system crusade in schools is organized, growing in power and well-funded by venture capitalists and corporations. Many companies are looking to profit from student and teacher data that can be easily collected, stored, processed, customized, analyzed, and then ultimately resold”.
There’s money in it, but not for the right reasons nor for the right people: our children. I read this research by Phil McRae and it all made sense. This time it is personal. Corporations are taking our educational system, shaking it up and spitting out children who cannot think for themselves. They are calling it cost-effective but actually, adaptive learning systems are more costly than we know. It is all about the data this time. This is so dangerous for our society that I have to speak up and hope you speak up about this also. We need to fight for our children and their future and their data.
Framing adaptive learning systems as “personalized learning” has to stop. This image “At School in the Year 2000” – a futuristic image of learning as depicted on a postcard from the World’s Fair in Paris, Circa 1899 predicting what learning will be like in France in the year 2000. It is scary that this depiction is becoming true in the US and other parts of the world because we are being sold a bill of goods. Corporations and politicians are really good at framing what they believe we want to hear around a philosophy or concept that markets something they want to sell or use.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
The idea of children having their own personal choice how they will learn is being redesigned as increasingly data driven, standardized, and mechanized learning systems. Children should not be treated like automated teller machines or credit reward cards where companies can take their valuable data. It is all about control and saving money. But who’s money? Yes, technology can help personalize learning, but what technology and how? And who’s data?
Let’s be real: adaptive learning systems are for those things that can be easily digitized and tested like math problems and reading passages. They do not recognize or encourage high quality learning environments that are creative, inquiry-based, active, relevant, collaborative, and what our children need to be global citizens who are critical thinkers and problem-solvers.
We did this before. McRae reviews the history of using technology to control learning. It was all about feeding information to kids and controlling what they learned. B.F. Skinner did this in the 1950s where learning was about measurability, uniformity, and control of the student.
I grew up then and remember having problems understanding some concepts. That was mainly because everyone in the class was supposed to learn the same content at the same pace — too much content — too fast for most of us. I was provided an “intelligent tutor” outside of the classroom and sat in front of a screen answering multiple choice questions about what I read. I felt stupid and ashamed. It still didn’t make sense, but the teacher didn’t have extra time to spend with students falling behind.
I know I’m smart, but I felt stupid in many of my classes. If I went through that then, how many others felt like me? I wanted to give up, but one teacher and my parents believed in me. They spent time with me figuring out why I didn’t get it. That’s all I wanted — time with a real person who cared. We didn’t have all the technology then that we have now or I would have googled it and figured it out by myself. The problem with the technology then was that it wasn’t personal for me. It was the same worksheet I didn’t understand in the first place now on a screen.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) became the next big thing. Programs like PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations)and Computer Curriculum Corporation (CCC) were building labs for schools for large numbers of at-risk children paid with Title I money and categorical funds. I remember these because I was asked as technology coordinator and professional developer to help set them up. Schools put these labs in any area that would fit. Some high poverty schools had them set up next to heaters and most were managed by a parent or para-professional. Teachers would rotate their classes in and out every week. Kids were so excited at first to play the games that supposedly taught concepts they needed to learn.
After about six months, kids got bored with the games and clicked on any keys just to get through the games. There was nothing relevant or made sense for them to be there. Kids are so much smarter than we give them credit. When they were in their classes, they felt like they could maybe ask questions about their learning. But, in the lab, there was no one or no way to question what or if that was the one right answer. After a few years, the labs were dismantled or used for other purposes. But all the money was gone so there was no one left to run the labs or train the teachers.
CAI is now back as “adaptive learning systems.” Some of the old programs have been repurposed with more interactivity. McRae states it as “adaptive learning systems still promote the notion of the isolated individual, in front of a technology platform, being delivered concrete and sequential content for mastery. However, the re-branding is that of personalization (individual), flexible and customized (technology platform) delivering 21st century competencies (content).” [Source: McRae’s research]
CCC’s SuccessMaker is now Pearson’s adaptive learning system. Other adaptive systems have repurposed content but they still promote building mastery with sequential content. It is similar to the old worksheets repurposed using new technology. Dreambox refers to Skinner’s teaching machine and “adaptive learning as a computer-based and/or online educational system that modifies the presentation of material in response to student performance. Best-of-breed systems capture fine-grained data and use learning analytics to enable human tailoring of responses. The associated learning management systems (LMS) provide comprehensive administration, documentation, tracking and reporting progress, and user management.” [Source: http://www.dreambox.com/adaptive-learning]
Source: U.S. Department of Education , Office of Educational Technology, Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: An Issue Brief October 2012, page 30
Dreambox is now framing their system as “Intelligent Adaptive Learning” and others are starting to use the term “Intelligent Tutors.” Companies are creating hundreds of white papers and studies to prove that adaptive learning systems benefit our children. Be careful! Read them closely for the messages being delivered. We need to be critical consumers for our children’s sake.
McRae writes why we are so seduced for adaptive learning systems:
“First, it is seen as opening up possibilities for greater access to data that can be used to hyper-individualize learning and in turn diagnose the challenges facing entire school systems. Second, the modern teaching machines, and the growing reach and power of technologies, promises to (re)shape students into powerful knowledge workers of the 21st Century.”
As I said in my own situation, all I needed was time and someone who cared and listened to me. Today the technology is at our fingertips and children are using technology at younger and younger ages. We don’t need to spend millions on these systems. Information is available when we need it now. We just need to teach our children how to acquire the skills that help them access, evaluate, and use the information they find. We cannot feed information to children from “Teaching Machines” like what was in the 1899 postcard and what Skinner projected. It didn’t work in the 50s or the 90s. It won’t work now. This is dangerous for our children and our society.
Our children need caring and compassionate classrooms that encourage independent, creative and collaborative work. Technology is changing rapidly. We don’t need to go backwards and plug our children into machines. They will do that on their own but they need guidance in a different way. They need to know what is happening with their data. Schools protect student data, but adaptive learning systems sell the data to third party companies. Consider all the free social media and other programs available that collect data from you. You probably are aware when you sign in to certain programs, they know you and your data. But you might not have known that your child’s data including social security numbers and health concerns are being sold to third parties. This is dangerous! It will get even more dangerous if the government funds it and encourages the use of adaptive learning systems without some oversight.
Teachers need to know how to facilitate a different kind of learning environment that is flexible, personal, and creative. Personalized learning means that learners own and drive their learning not the technology using algorithms based on performance that controls learning. Learners need to learn how to think on their own. This will not happen if adaptive learning systems control how and what they learn.
It is personal now! Let’s all work together and do the right thing for our children. Teach them to learn, unlearn, and relearn. Show them that they can drive their learning so they can reach their fullest potential.
With so many bright minds desperate for work, why are we trying to automate teaching. Our value system is so far out of wack – we build machines to take care of the elderly and teach the young so we can all focus on making deals in the City or on Wall Street in order to make a fortune. Why don’t we value teaching?
Jesse – Teachers are my heroes. They work harder than most people know. But teachers only know what they know or been taught. Teachers shouldn’t be the hardest working people in a classroom. Learning is personal and should be difficult and challenging to the learner. If the teacher is working harder than the learners and are the ones responsible and accountable for their learners learning, then learners don’t really see why they should work hard. Standardized test scores don’t matter to them. Grades do so they can get out of school and into the college they want or just get on with their lives. We’re wasting valuable time with brilliant minds who are told to choose only one right answer on the multiple choice test. What a waste! I’ve worked with at-risk kids who were labeled “slow” who in my eyes were gifted. Nobody took the time to get to know these kids. Many were labeled dumb in kindergarten. How could we do this to our kids?
We need to value learning and new roles for teachers. For learners to drive their own learning, teachers are more like facilitators and become partners in learning with their learners. This is all new and not taught in teacher education programs. It is still teaching teachers to provide direct instruction that engages kids instead of guiding kids to find something that intrinsically motivates them to want to learn. It should be more than getting an A on an essay that only the teacher reads. We need kids that can think for themselves, defend a position, demonstrate that they have their own ideas and much more. Then they will be able to become the best learner they can be and meet their fullest potential.
Thanks – Barbara
Thank you Barbara, I completely agree with your message. We need to find more ways to allow students to direct, share, control, and create their own learning. Thank you.
Matt – no thank you! I really enjoy working with you and am looking forward to the science projects you have developed that encourage learner voice and choice. This year is going to be very exciting! Thanks! Barbara
Thank you for this thought-provoking article, Barbara. I can see the lure of using adaptive learning systems in the classroom. When teachers have too many students, systems like Dreambox Learning, are able to provide personalized instruction for students that addresses their specific learning needs. Compared to a one-size-fits-all lesson this can be attractive to teachers to help students at different learning levels. Your article makes a good point that we don’t want classrooms to become like the postcard from the world’s fair. We are using Dreambox Learning this year in a rural school in a 4th-8th grade combo class. The teacher uses the program to supplement or her instruction. While she works with small grade level groups, the other students can work on skills they need using Dreambox.
Throwing students in front of a piece of technology and expecting a program to teach them everything will never work. Learning experiences need to be crafted that include creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and communication. As you mentioned, our students need to be able to learn unlearn and relearn in order to be successful today.
Your article provides an excellent warning to educators not to put too much faith or responsibility on the technology. I will definitely be looking in to how dream box learning uses our data. Thank you for this informative piece.
Rae – Technology can support a learner on their own learning path if the learner drives their learning. If the learning is controlled by a curriculum that is not relevant to the child or not supporting their learning goals, what happens to the child who does get left behind? We need to guide children to learn, unlearn, and relearn. We develop instructional strategies for the average learner and forget that no one is average. We don’t seem to value how amazing children are before the come to school and that they are creative, curious beings. I know that I had problems fitting in in school. So did my children. So did many children. We did what we were told to get a grade, but my best learning was outside of school. I had good experiences in some classes that were memorable but very few.
Rae – you shared with me some exciting projects your kids are doing and they have nothing to do with adaptive learning systems. They are using technology to create and explore and collaborate. I didn’t realize your children were using an adaptive learning system. If you can follow them, reflect on how they are doing, provide some good data, make sure that their data is safe, etc., then we have better information to share.
I’d like to pose a question to you. What is the difference between personalized learning and personalized instruction?
[…] a post she directed her followers to by Barbara Bray on the dangers of corporate driven education: https://barbarabray.net/2013/12/30/this-time-its-personal-and-dangerous/ Another librarian I’ve been following posted this interesting article about the popularity of […]
[…] Personalized Learning is not about feeding information to kids via adaptive learning systems. We already did that and it didn't work then. It is all about the learner owning and driving their learning. […]
Actually this paper is about BAD adaptive learning systems, which capture and use learning (big) data to identify “the best individual path” of each learner through the curriculum and push the learner through this “best path”.
1) There is NO the fixed best path for any learner. What if the learner missed a turn on such a path? She would be completely lost. As it was said above, each learner should drive her own learning (learn, unlearn, relearn,…) and all she needs is time and someone who cared and listened to her.
2) Such “adaptive systems” use the same BAD crafted curriculum ( poor learning experiences, guess-based assessments, disconnected from learning objectives).
3) they are NOT integrated with wealth of other learning activities: informal, social, classroom,…
In contrast, Good Adaptive Learning Systems are supposed to be like a GPS helping the learner to navigate to any Objectives in the well organized and well crafted learning space. Equipped with such GPS-like adaptive learning system, each learner is completely free and supported. She can browse the entire curriculum map, select her own objectives, get just-in-time recommendation which next Activity to hit to better achieve selected objectives. The learner can miss the recommended turn, select another one, ignore recommendations at all and drive on her own. But when she gets lost and needs a help, this help will be always provided in well crafted learning space.
We, at iTutorSoft, have created such a GOOD adaptive learning system. But it is more than a system. It is a platform, which also includes an Authoring Tool for rapid creating, verification and quality assuring a well-organized and well-crafted blended learning space, where GPS-like adaptive learning GOOD systems are able to work.
So, our platform eliminates deficiencies of BAD systems criticized above and allows building adaptive blended learning systems, which cares and listen to learners.
Thanks. Contact us for demo.
Thank you for your share. The concern is what happens to the data collected and who or what is deciding the paths for children. Learning is personal. I’d like to check out your program and how it encourages each learner to create their learning path based on how they learn best.
“What happens to the data collected”?
Theoretical aspect: Some developers of adaptive learning systems follow the Lockean philosophy and believe in data analysis, which can reveal the model from data to make decisions. Others follow Kantian philosophy and believe that model + data with feedback between them can improve the model.
Business aspect: “What happens to the data collected” is more about people making business around the adaptive learning systems.
You make many good points, Barb.
There is nothing wrong with adapting learning opportunities to address students’ strengths. We learn differently so we need to be able to access content and demonstrate mastery in a variety of formats. That is what Universal Design for Learning is all about.
Personalized learning is not about that. Personalized learning has to do with relevance to a learner’s life. Ideally, we will want to provide learning opportunities that relate to students’ realities and that they can use in their everday lives.
Lets do both.
Leigh Zeitz
Dr. Z
[email protected]
http://drzreflects.com
Leigh – I agree. Learners learn best based on how they prefer or need to access information. Kathleen and I based our approach of personalizing learning [http://www.personalizelearning.com] on UDL and how learners access information, engage with content, and express what they know. Learning is personal to the learner. The problem with the current educational system is that we are forcing content into young minds who might resist the type of instruction fed to them. Some of the adaptive learning systems are tied to curriculum objectives, standards, and pacing guides not on how each learner may learn best. My concerns are what happens to learners who fall behind, what happens to their data, and are they really learning what they need or prefer to learn.
Wolfgang Kohler’s theory states that we learn best if the electrical fields are set up in our brains when we perceive, think and feel and they participate in memorable experiences especially those where they are creating and driving their learning. When we are frustrated, anxious, or forced to learn something that is not relevant, we make children afraid to learn. Technology provides pleasurable experiences if it is relevant to the learner and how they learn best.
I enjoy the use of technology and encourage it. I see the value of many of the systems out there. I just want us to not go down the same path we did earlier where we plugged children into “teaching machines” for the wrong reasons to get the wrong outcomes. I appreciate your post and hope to continue this conversation.
Barbara
[…] Personalized Learning is not about feeding information to kids via adaptive learning systems. We already did that and it didn't work then. It is all about the learner owning and driving their learning. […]
[…] Personalized Learning is not about feeding information to kids via adaptive learning systems. We already did that and it didn't work then. It is all about the learner owning and driving their learning. […]
Barbara, Thank you for sharing this. I have had similar thoughts. Recently, my district has started to assemble a guide for principals who are interested in pursuing blended learning –and I found myself wondering –what will motivate these principals to pursue blended learning? I believe personalized learning (your variety) is the answer to why a school should pursue blended learning. One of the things the guide will point out is that principals should first answer the question of why before they move in this direction. Adaptive technology scares me –it contradicts everything that I know about what motivates students to learn, and how they learn.
Thanks Barbara, I agree with your post. thanks for nice message.
[…] It is Personal and Dangerous Now | Rethinking Learning – Barbara Bray […]
[…] undermine our ability to freely learn what we want to learn. Barbara calls out “adaptive learning systems” as one example. “The filter bubble,” as described by Eli Pariser, is another. A […]
This article confirmed a conversation that I had earlier with my colleague. As educators and administrators, our primary focus is to empower a student to ‘be the best you’ – he or she can be.
We work at an adult school so our students have multiple reasons for learning new ideas. Our job is to empower students to achieve their personal best.
Great article!
[…] This Time It’s Personal and Dangerous is by Barbara Bray. Personalized Instruction is knowing each child, how they learn, think, engage… then setting a course of action… @mcpssuper […]
[…] Personalized Learning is not about feeding information to kids via adaptive learning systems. We already did that and it didn't work then. It is all about the learner owning and driving their learning. […]
[…] This Time It’s Personal and Dangerous is by Barbara Bray. Personalized Instruction is knowing each child, how they learn, think, engage… then setting a course of action… @mcpssuper […]
Thank you Larry! I’m going to be following up with more information about data and how Personalized Learning is being framed.
Barbara
[…] This Time It’s Personal and Dangerous is by Barbara Bray. Personalized Instruction is knowing each child, how they learn, think, engage… then setting a course of action… @mcpssuper […]
[…] This Time It’s Personal and Dangerous […]