TITLE: An Argument Against Personalizing Instruction
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: June 26, 2014  3:27 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
Most people seem to believe that personalizing instruction
to each individual is an unalloyed good.  However,
<A HREF="http://kuranga.tumblr.com/post/89290487631/dont-personalize-learning">
   Benjamin Riley argues</A>
that two common axioms of individualized instruction "run
afoul of our current understanding of cognition":
<UL>
<LI> Students will learn more if they have more control
     over <EM>what</EM> they learn (the "path").  </LI>
<LI> Students will learn more if they have more control
     over <EM>when</EM> they learn (the "pace").  </LI>
</UL>

He says that both run the risk of giving the learner too
much freedom.

<B>Path</B>.  Knowledge is cumulative, and students need
a suitable context in which to interpret and assimilate
new information.  If they try to learn things in the
wrong order, they may not be able to make sense of the
new information.  They are also more likely to become
frustrated, which impedes learning further.

<B>Pace</B>.  Thinking is hard, and learning isn't always
fun.  Most people have a natural tendency to shy away
from difficult or unpleasant tasks, and as a result can
slow our overall rate of learning when we have to choose
what to work on next.

(Dan Meyer
<A HREF="http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2014/dont-personalize-learning/">
   offers a second reason</A>
to doubt the pace axiom: a lot of the fun and insight that
comes from learning happens when we learn synchronously
with a group.)

Of course, we could take Riley's arguments to their
extremes and eliminate any consideration of the individual
from our instructional plans.  That would be a mistake.
For example, each student comes into the classroom with a
particular level of understanding and a particular body of
background knowledge.  When we take this background into
account in a reasonable way, then we should be able to
maximize each student's learning potential.  When we don't,
we unnecessarily limit their learning.

However, on balance, I agree with Riley's concerns.  Some
of my university students benefit greatly when given control
over their own learning.  Most, though, struggle making
choices about what to think about next and why.  They also
tend not to give themselves enough credit for how much they
can learn if only they put in the time and energy studying
and practicing.  They need help with both path and pace.

I've been teaching long enough now to respect the value that
comes with experience as a teacher.  By no means am I a
perfect teacher, but after teaching a course for a few times
I begin to see ways in which I can order topics and pace the
coverage in ways that help more students succeed in the
course.  I don't think I appreciated this when I was a
student.  The best teachers I ever had were the ones who had
this experience and used it well.

I'll stick with my usual approach of trying to design a
curriculum intentionally with regard to bother order and
timing, while at the same time trying to take my students'
current knowledge into account as we move through the course.
-----