I am preparing to teach “mastery learning” next week. Teaching this topic is not particularly difficult for me because I have been interested in the topic since I first became interested in the early 1970s. The underlying principles made so much sense to me, but at that time, the classroom implementations struggled as expectations for “tutoring” associated with these principles were often impractical. As my own interests migrated to how technology might be helpful to learners, I found new opportunities for how these principles might be implemented.
The popularity of the “personalization” of learning is a recent trend that suffers from ambiguity. Some, who have connections with the principles I have just mentioned, have used the term to describe the pacing of learning. The background and aptitude of different learners dictate what might be considered the optimal pace for learning a given topic. Some can move faster than others. I don’t see how this reality can be disputed. Unfortunately, the way we educate (note the distinction here between how we educate and how we learn) involves one teacher working with a group of learners. It is often impractical for this one individual to pace learning experiences that are optimal for each leaner. This is where technology can be helpful. You can search my blog using the term “mastery” to locate other posts on this topic.
The other way of thinking about personalization might be thought of as learner interests. Obviously, we have different personal interests and we are likely more motivated to study the topics that interest us than the topics that do not. Again, technology offers a way to allow individual learners to study different topics (so does a trip to the library).
These two ways of understanding personalization have ended up at odds with each other. It is more than just using the term in different ways. In some cases, it involves a negative reaction to the other way of using the term. More clearly, this difference argues that the other perspective may lead to negative educational outcomes.
I don’t see the world this way. I see opportunities for combining opportunities to explore personal interests (think 20% time projects) and opportunities to learn required content at a pace suited to the needs of the individuals (mastery learning). To me, this is life. We have expectations we must address and we have freedom to explore what interests us. Personalization can make both expectations more productive.
I recommend this NPR “All things considered” program as recognizing the ideas I describe here.