OLLIE Iowa

I can understand how it would take a teacher to be more organized when students are choosing their own way to present material. The teacher in a traditional setting would have all of the students use the same method or material for learning, where now each student can have a different way to learn the material and present it. The teacher would have to have some knowledge of the different types of ways students could use to learn and present.

Agreed, I think that teachers would have to look for more characteristics of presentations rather than a specific set of measurable criteria. You could try to set up a rubric based on criteria, but I still think teachers would need to be open should a student show up and do something that meets learning standards yet defies the confines of a rubric.

I think this is where teaches shut down. Teachers think that Flipped learning or Personalized learning is less work, in reality it is a lot more work. It'd be easier to keep track of 20-30 kids on exactly the same path.

When students have a choice, it does make them feel like they are a part of their learning and not just having someone else tell them what they are to learn and how they are going to go about learning the material. It gives them a reason to do the lesson and feel powerful in doing it.

Yes. Not just for kids. When I'm not micromanaged and feel that my support system supports my learning and interests, I am much more inclined to be engaged, productive, satisfied, etc.

We experienced that in our Personalized Professional Development this year. We were able to select an area of interest, learn about it, then present what we learned. We had very positive feedback and pretty motivated on PD days!

When I have students talking too much during class or "goofing around", I have had them choose who is going to move. Like the article says, it is less stressful for me and the students usually end up apologizing and gaining control of their situation. Again, they feel they are a part of it and are taking ownership instead of someone telling them exactly what to do.

You would just have to create a rubric that would cover all of the ways students could produce a final project. The rubric would have to focus on the learning targets not what the project looks like. I would assume students would be presenting this work.

What happens if a student does not work on the project? If the project takes a long period of time and they wasted too much time then They may not have time to finish it. I understand how student's might fail and that is part of learning. Middle School students need some time management help when keeping on track. It would be difficult to totally let go.

I think this is where my hold up would be on a project. It's hard for me to see my students fail. Especially when the student is actively trying to succeed. Failure is a part of real life but I think I'd try to do too much of the work for the student so ensure success.

I'm with you guys here. Real life has deadlines ... and consequences for not meeting those deadlines. Personal(ized) learning requires a total growth mindset from both the student and the teacher. I'm not sure I'm there yet. Can't relinquish that control totally. I've tried blending my instruction and that's not going the best. Turning them loose completely scares me.

Must students do enjoy the learning more if they have some choice. Some of the math class would have to be the same, but students would like choice where available. Or you could have students think how they might use a certain skill in their real lives.

Interesting idea, I would love to see a video of this in action. The teacher must have taught conflict resolution skills. Many students do not have the skills to complete this task. Maybe with the help of a peer mentor, on their own would be difficult depending on the age of the students.

This is a cool idea. I would also like to know more about how this works in class. I think putting the uncomfortableness on the students might help improve the behavior more quickly.

This is definitely a pro argument for adaptive learning because teachers can view student reports to learn what concepts in whichj students are struggling. Then they can target their small group instruction to those students and concepts.

In online learning, this can be a real time benefit to both the teacher and the student. Questions and conversations can be focused on what is most important.

This statement does a good job of connecting personalized and adaptive learning. Content delivery, assessment, and mastery can be adapted and personalized to meet the needs of the student.

Yes, adaptive learning products will act as private tutors for some of the students, but I don't think it will the same for all students. Some students would need that personal touch from a real person to get motivated. I think it would be more inportant for younger students to have interaction with a real person.

You would have to spend a while testing out the products to see, which one would work the best for your students and your class. Especially when some of them are so costly. Who would you have test out the products? I would think it would be teachers who have taught the material before.

Thinking maps are a great way for children and adults to categorize information. I agree with the statement that teachers mistakenly assume that kids know how to think. Thinking is a very complex task that requires practice. Children need guidance in how to stay focused and concentrate on categorizing information.

And through modeling and scaffolding with students, they will eventually learn how to do this skill more independently.

This is such a powerful statement that I agree with wholeheartedly! I have noticed it more this year than in the past. Kids don't know how to think or interact well with each other. They need more time to play and less time on instruction and technology.

Integrating play into personalized learning gives learners of all ages an opportunity to be creative and make better connections to current knowledge. It also allows students the chance to be in control of their own learning.

Learning new tech tools can be an overwhelming task especially if one grew up before the technology revolution. Picking one digital tool and focusing on that for awhile will help both the teacher and students become more confident and comfortable with using technology for personal learning.

I keep seeing "individual needs" and its variants, but no one seems to be able to define it or give specific examples. Is it just "deficiencies in basic educational content and/or skills"? And preferences ... are we still talking supplemental or the entirety of a class/curriculum? I am probably wrong, but I keep getting the impression Personalized Learning keeps getting put up on this pedestal because of its potential when done well, but not too many proponents seem willing to comment on the pitfalls beyond "well, you need everyone on board" and "it will take time to get used to it" and other ancillary notions.

It isn't? Everything we've been looking at indicates computers and tablets and the like are essential to do this (except for the million-dollar grade school classrooms that have a dozen "dive into whatever you want to do" stations). I would love to hear more about how technology is not the focus of enabling student-centered learning.

But is it, though? How much longer before college application essays go by the wayside? The author seems to be saying this with all the enthusiasm of a weary teacher saying "we should still teach how to balance check books." Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of essays and articles and papers and theses, but I've also sat through Teacher Workshops in which experts told us only English classes should be doing papers, since students should basically learn the skill and do more enjoyable things in other classes. Sort of like this article here. But, if it's a "skill" only for one class, and a class fewer and fewer are taking in college or 'needing" after school years, why are we saying it is still important?

I don't want to have a Jim from The Office eye-brow raising moment here, but it's difficult not to. This sounds all great, especially the "rewind" until mastery notion, but are students so capable of handling video lectures they will truly utilize them correctly? I still fear the temptation to treat computer-driven learning as less real than in-person/in-community learning. And I don't say that to be the Keeper of the Lecture Stronghold. Everything on the computer/Internet is designed to be fast, flashy, shallow ... why would they consider school stuff less so? Sure, the "good students" will, but they would regardless of the medium, wouldn't they? If this continues, is there a need for us to even be teachers? Why not just put all our courses on pre-packaged flashdrives and download sites and implement a pay-by-the-class access fee? Have we taken the notion of "teaching ourselves out of a job" in the wrong direction?

So is this an "English" class? It's all been so vague, it's been hard to tell except for a few notions about reading a story above. The generalities have been wholly unhelpful. Where are the specifics? Instead of saying "I use videos to create meaningful experiences and Web sites to beget actionable feedback opportunities," I would have rather read about actual tools and programs and in-class activities. Does anyone outside of the English/Research world find this practical?

This is exactly what I'm talking about above. What does this even mean?

How is this better? I'm not saying I'm opposed to effecting "real change," but as with so much of this article, the heart of the issue is either implied or missing. How has the change of format demonstrated an improvement in the general abilities of students to demonstrate research/writing skills?

And again, this is just ambiguous enough to sound good, but what does it mean? Busy work is still busy work regardless if students are "engaged" or bored. By "assignments that let me do my best work" are we talking "I can do things I'm already good at"? I fear that is an area of Personalized Learning many students will exploit (for lack of a better term). If they are given the opportunity to do things they already like or are good at, why would they ever challenge themselves to do anything else, learn anything else, risk anything else? Are we prepared for Speech Classes in which students do Screencasts or Prezzis all semester long and never stand up in front of an audience and look people in the eyes? Is that the "genuine learning" PL and technology are giving the next generation of politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, diplomats, and the rest? (This is where you tell me how far afield I am. I would genuinely be glad for some alleviation.)

It seems that the older generation is more reluctant to change the way students learn. I feel that a large percentage of people that have been in education for quite awhile want standardized tests, data, etc. That is what they know. Changing to a personal way of learning is going to take many years for everyone to buy into that concept...in my opinion.

Agreed. I think even the new generation of teachers out there are behind the pace of what students need nowadays because the conventional ways of education have been so slow to change.

Yes, it's going to be slow change.... I think what complicates this is the rate at which technology changes things. We just can't keep up!

I had a friend that taught HS English/French for over 30 years. She retired last year because she said her school was using more and more technology. Her exact words were "I have no desire to learn all that new technology." My first thought was "that's too bad. Maybe she would have really enjoyed the new changes."

Her style of learning was having the students read the material at night and discuss the material during class.

It really is a shame at what some of these teachers that are near retirement age are missing out on. I understand that change is not always fun at first. However, when we see the engagement and joy in the students' eyes with these new and exciting resources we have to offer them, that's when our jobs are most rewarding!

That can be true, but I know students who feel the opposite. In some foreign language classes, they are being inundated with technology (videos, interactive sites, music), but they hate the courses because they aren't learning anything! No grammar, no sentence structure, no parsing, just parroting sounds pretending technology is giving them an education. Sometimes too many resources can be detrimental.

It seems we can't do anything without technology. Does anyone think technology has went too far? I struggle with that question.

I also struggle with that question. Is technology great? Yes. Is technology changing the way we think and teach at times? Yes. Should technology always be the main focus of our teaching/learning. I don't necessarily think so. I feel students need foundation skills (reading from print books, basic mathematics understandings, etc.) before they have the potential to be distracted by technology. Can a child learn to read on an iPad-of course! Can a child learn their numbers on an iPad-of course! But there is something about a child holding a book in their hand and flipping the pages as they are learning to read. There is also something about a child using counters and manipulating them to help them get a better sense of numbers.

I think we need to think in terms of what works best for the student. I have students that hate getting on computers to do their work and would prefer just to work out of a workbook or have a worksheet with manipulatives. Part of personal learning is letting the students choose how to do the work, at a minimum.

I agree that we need to think about what works best for each student. Even in preschool we have technology requirements and I have students that could care less if they ever had tablet time. I feel bad trying to force technology on them when the information could be learned a different way.

I agree with you mogrena. Looking at education through a developmental lens, I do not feel that allowing young children large amounts of technology use is appropriate. Young students need to manipulate objects. It can't be done exclusively with a software program.

Put 20 people into a room and you'll have 20 different answers for those words.

Agreed, "deep learning" can mean varying degrees of effort, time, and rigor depending on who is talking.

We talk about personal learning for our children. What about the learning for our educators? Should we incorporate this in the college setting?

But when the Administration and the Board declare this is the only objective (to use the adjective) way we have to measure classroom "success" ... how do teachers counter that? Especially when SAT averages and college acceptance lists are the main selling points on the promotional material?

Agreed with the premise that there are some serious issues in what counts as "success" in our school systems. Risk taking is fine, encouraged even, as long as the research behind it says it will help scores go up.

This is a sad truth in teaching today. As a reading interventionist Fast score have a large influence in what I am to be working towards and what is considered success. However, my success is when students are becoming better readers. Good readers is a much larger picture than how fast they read. Are they monitoring their reading, do they understand it? These are skills that matter greatly as well.