OLLIE Iowa

This is so critical for a positive online learning experience -- the feeling of connection to other humans. It doesn't occur as organically as it would in a traditional face-to-face classroom environment. So it needs to be planned-for and developed. I already appreciate the weekly video posts -- just so I can see my instructor "in-person" -- it lends such a more welcoming feel to the course. It makes me feel that I am not alone in this journey.

This is another great example of something I would automatically expect in face-to-face instruction, but I think is largely taken for granted in an online space. There should be norms of behavior online, just as there are norms of behavior in a classroom to promote respectful dialogue.

A teacher needs to be prepared for each class period whether it is online or face to face. There needs to be a plan for what students need to learn and a path for how they will reach the end goal.

Just as in a face to face classroom, each student will show their learning differently. It is important to give students different opportunities to show what they know.

I think we all enjoy interacting with others, this shouldn't be any different online. The way we interact may look different but it should still be present.

As the facilitator of a course, we must model how we expect the learners to behave. Especially at the high school level, I do not expect my students to have everything "figured" out.

I'm not sure if anyone else (specifically math teachers) have heard of Open Middle problems before, but personalized learning kind of reminds me of those. Students all start at the same place and end at the same place (which would be learning/understanding the content and meeting standards) but how students get to the end goal is up to them.

Erin - this is how I try to teach my math classes. If I know of multiple ways to solve a problem, I will show my students all of them and then tell them they have to pick whichever method(s) fit their brains. My brain works differently than others - I am a pattern person, not a formula person. So when I am teaching the formula stuff, I always try to show my kids how my brain sees things - just in case there are other pattern people out there.

Students learn all different ways and I agree with showing students all ways a problem can be done and have them choose what way works best for them and their learning style!

This is the conundrum that I have been facing as I've begun learning more about personalized learning through this course. How can we create a balance between the types of schools we've imagined with personalized learning and the demands placed on schools by the government?

Seven words into the article and I'm already saying, "YES!" As I was talking to my kids about their ideal school and imagining a day in the life of a personalized learner, I kept thinking, "Why can't we create these types of schools? I would LOVE for my kids to go to a school like this!" The idea of creating environments in which students can create their day to match their learning needs and they can pursue topics that they are most interested in is very "seductive." I want that for my students, my own kids, and even for myself. How amazing would it be to teach in a school like we've imagined?

This is how 'school' used to be. Kids went for the basics, and then as soon as they had mastered those, they found someone to apprentice to in order to learn the craft/trade that they wanted to do. Or, if they went on to a college, they simply found instructors that were talking about things they were interested in and sat in on those conversations. With the industrialization of America, we had to shift to more standardized learning because manufacturers needed those skills in their factories. So, we actually need to shift back to the old ways (in my opinion).

like many new "initiatives"- it's important to look past the shiny newness and see what is worth keeping

I feel like we've been hearing this for awhile now - we are preparing students for jobs that don't even exist yet. The skills and dispositions they will need to be successful in the workforce are more about problem solving, creative thinking, and communication versus an abundance of knowledge of facts and formulas. So how are we (can we) changing how schools function to match how the "real world" has changed in the last decade?

I had the opportunity a few years ago to talk to upper elementary students about the concept of learning. It was amazing to me that many of these said that learning looks like sitting quietly and listening to the teacher or getting all the questions correct on a test. These definitions made me sad. How is it that in just a few years of schooling we have given students such a passive view of learning? Learning is done to them not something that they are in charge of. Personal learning is a shift in the right directions. We have to TEACH students how to be learners. We have to put them in the "driver's seat" and allow them to make the decisions that will help them learn.

Erin, your comment really resonates with me. I think sometimes we inadvertently communicate this message about what learning is to our students. We focus a lot on compliance but struggle at teaching students how to learn, how to monitor their own understanding, how to determine where their are gaps in their understanding and where to go next. I think this focus on compliance creates a lot of hoop jumpers or box checkers that know how to play the "game" of school.

Yes, yes, yes! This is what I've been striving to get across to my technology director this year as we are working toward a 1:1 digital learning environment in our elementary schools. I want PD to be focused on best practices of instruction not simply the latest and greatest tech features. The way to engage students hasn't changed because we have more access to technology - if we want to truly engage students in the content we have to get them passionate about it and interested in learning more for the sake of learning not just scoring points on an assignment.

Is anyone in an AIW district? We use AIW to some extent within our district and one of the key pieces of learning I took away from my AIW training was asking "Who is carrying the cognitive load?" We need to ensure that the teacher is not the one doing all of the heavy lifting in the learning. We need to design learning experiences in which the students are the ones actively doing the learning. We don't want "sit and get" lessons in which students simply listen to the information. We want students to be asking questions and seeking their own answers.

I love this passage so much - the mass customized learning and reference to Orwellian doublespeak are fantastic. I do think that personal learning does become somewhat bastardized when you focus so heavily on the platform, or the program, or the technology that is going to make thee learning happen. That is not personalized learning, that is algorithmized learning or learning that measures me against some predetermined set of criteria but doesn't take into account what I am interested in, what dispositions I have, etc. It is kind of a double edged sword though becuase in order to efficiently make learning personal (given our current human resources constraints in our current models of education - 1 teacher, 31 - 150 kids, prepping for multiple classes/subjects) you need to have some kind of technology to help support.

Personal learning (as Kohn prefers it to be called) seems very good in theory. However, when it comes down to the nitty gritty - planning how it would actually function within a school / classroom, it gets messy. That is the point when many teachers I work with go back to standardization. it's easier when everyone does the same thing. How can we get over this hurdle?

I so agree. Personalized sounds idea but how does that work with 20 - 30 students and 1 teacher? I see where an online program works for this but believe when you put them on a program that a teacher didn't make the connection gets lost.

This seems to be the definition that our class is referring to when we say personalized learning.

This seems to be what another lesson referred to as "individualized" learning - the student has control over how fast they work through the skills, but it is the same skills for all students.

From our debate in the class forums, this quote reminds me of differentiation/individualization versus personalization. In my mind, personalized learning is personalized for each student and giving them control over the what, how, and when of the learning process while still keeping them accountable to the standards and expectations of their grade level.

This reminded me of a blog post I read recently about thinking versus remembering. (https://www.byrdseed.com/thinking-or-remembering/) It also connects to the AIW (Authentic Intellectual Work) principles of construction of knowledge and conceptual understanding.

And if we are creating thinkers who are enthusiastic about learning and curious about the world around them, won't they learn more? Won't they be more employable and successful in the future? And in turn, won't they also probably do better on the state assessments? If students really have to think and understand content at a deeper level, they are more likely to remember what they've learned.

This does tend to be the thought process however I feel that students are actually more engaged when we take away the technology. Without the technology they are more inclined to discuss, collaborate, and think about their work without just assuming what their "google search" search found is the only answer or for that matter the only correct answer.

Truth! The trick is to get students to drive their own education - I don't have an answer -just a reality.

This is foundational in any sort of teaching. Good pedagogy carries through no matter if it's technology driven, student driven, or teacher driven.

Huh. This to me says we should be doing away with the idea of CORE.... I realize why it was implemented, however... I know that many students' brains are not ready for Algebra in 6th, 7th, 8th, even 9th grade - so they really struggle and get frustrated and give up in math.

Deep learning. I feel like some times when we thinking of online learning we think of videos/lectures, assignments, and etc. the same as a traditional classroom. This is when we need to do some personalization and flipping of our prior knowledge. How do we allow students to still learn the things that the standards say, but in a way that they can show their depth of knowledge by not just answering questions but by us really understanding their understanding of a certain topic. More of the deep learning takes place when they have to create or explain in their own words with reasonsing.

Data driven was a key word that always grabs my attention. This is where data can be placed into the course to understand where a certain student's pathway lies. This would also be a great example of our students. We have students that are 18 years of age, with minimal prior education but we still place them as a senior grade level. This allows us to really personalize learning for that student for them to be successful.

This is the tension I am struggling with- it's great to want kids to learn in a personal way, but there are standards we are accountable for

that's creepy

this should be on the bumper sticker

this brings to mind the questions of PLCs 1. What do we want all students to know and be able to do? 2. How will we know if they learn it? 3. How will we respond when some students do not learn? 4. How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient? I'm still struggling with the idea of personalized learning and how structurally fits into our school model.

it seems that the COVID induced remotely learning across the country has served as a sign that this idea is not good for anyone

like many new "initiatives"- it's important to look past the shiny newness and see what is worth keeping

these definitions are key to any conversation about personalized learning or even when talking about a student-centered classroom