When asked: Can learning be too personalized?, experts in technology education, Michael Peters and John Hendron, fell on opposite sides of the spectrum. Michael Peters stated that although there are benefits to personalized education, education as a whole must conform to a certain set of standards in order to allow students to be on common ground in certain knowledge foundations. Because personal education plans often involve the use of technology and are completed by individuals online, Peters fears that students' overall ability to work collaboratively and creatively with others will decline. Peters states that "education is only truly successful insofar as it can prepare us for applying our individual talents while working with others" (Peters and Hendron 6). Therefore, if learning is too personalized, and consequently social interactions and collaboration decline, students are not adequately prepared to enter the "real" world. However, John Hendron disagrees and states that international, national, and state perspectives on education skew learning to focus on creating a workforce that can compete economically. Hendron advocates for a more individual based perspective on education where curriculum "caters [itself] to student's strengths... and interests" (Peters and Hendron 7). The idea behind this personalized education is to focus on student's individual interests in the hope to help them reach their fullest potential. Although Hendron advocates personalized education, he also says that their still needs to be a set of standards which address common knowledge. In other words, all students must have the same basic knowledge so that the society at large can function harmoniously. He gives the example that students must take a driver's ed course before going on the road, even if they are not interested in the subject matter, so that basic societal needs are maintained.
I think the fact that two experts had totally different opinions about personalized education, means that moderation is needed. Students must be encouraged to pursue their interests and grow in their strengths, while they also learn a set of standardized common curriculum. If students' learning is too personalized then their education will be skewed to address only certain fields, and therefore students will not have a well-rounded and holistic education. However, if education is too standardized, and fails to address the needs and interests of individual students, then students will not be encouraged to pursue their own passions and make their knowledge/education their own. Therefore, I suggest that schools integrate a period of freetime exploration into daily schedules where students can discover new interests and refine skills. For example, students can explore and research various topics or careers they are interested in using the internet. They can look at online tutorials to teach them certain crafts or trades. In order for students to be held accountable for using exploration time productively and positively, students should be required to write reflections or document their exploration for teacher/peer review. This exploration and accountability also opens up doors for students to share with their peers what they are learning and how they are growing in certain fields of interests. This collaboration can inspire further research and ignite new passions in others students. Education therefore, with appropriate modification and moderation, can address the needs of the society and the individual.
This article did not address any of the NETS-S standards.
Peters, M., & Hendron, J. (2013, August). Can Learning be too Personalized? Learning & Leading Through Technology, 6-7. Retrieved February 12, 2014
I found this interesting, Hailey, because when I was younger I hated working in groups. I wanted my education to be 100% personalized and working collaboratively was terrifying. Now that I am older and in college I understand the need for it and the importance of it. I agree with you that there should be a balance between standardized and personalized education. That will lead to the best result for societal harmony like you said. I found the driver's ed example helpful. Everyone must taking driving lessons so that everyone is following the same driving laws. However, this made me think more about the professionals' differing opinions. Peters advocates for standardized education in order to collaborate and prepare for the "real" world. But in my mind, it would make more sense to advocate for personalized education if economic success is the goal. I started thinking of trade schools and how catering to a student's personal interests and talents would give them more vocational focus and skill. If every student is receiving the same standard education, they might collaborate well, but then they might not have the specific skills for a specific needed job, which could hurt the economy. I agree that some standardized education needs to be present, but I feel like Peters should be able to see the economic value of personalized education.
ReplyDeleteHayley, i thought this was a very interesting read. I found that with two sides it certainly does need to be modified. if students are having to focus on their learnings as personalized only will be teaching the students only a specific way of teaching. I feel that groups and working collaboratively is very important because not only will it help them with communicating and being able to work together in a group, but it will help them socially to. Having a cross between personalized education and standardized education is important because it will lead to a more balanced student.
ReplyDelete