Personalized Learning

Caution Urged on Personalized Learning With Ed Tech

By Benjamin Herold — November 28, 2014 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

By Michele Molnar. Cross-posted from the Marketplace K-12 blog.

Using technology to educate students isn’t always effective, or cost-effective, and doesn’t necessarily translate into what is often called “personalized learning,” according to a report released Monday.

The review of various studies by Noel Enyedy, an associate professor of education and information studies at the University of California-Los Angeles, concludes that education technology deployed in the name of personalized instruction yields modest improvements in educational outcomes, at best, in some cases, and none at all in others.

Enyedy summarized his findings in a brief with a long title--"Personalized Instruction: New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning”--which was released by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder’s school of education.

In a phone interview, Enyedy said he does not object to the use of technology. In fact, he calls himself “a critical friend” of education technology, evaluating his own use of it in the classroom and for research, and critiquing where educational technology is effective in general.

Educators who use digital tools bear the responsibility of finding out what works, he said, and policymakers would be well advised to make sure schools test technology on a limited basis before buying on a large scale. It is, he wrote, “unrealistic and irresponsible not to figure out how to use technology well.”

He also says education technology an expensive option for districts, especially considering that it produces uneven results.

Personalized Instruction vs. Personalized Learning

Enyedy draws a distinction between what he describes as personalized instruction and personalized learning.

Personalized instruction, he explains, “focuses on tailoring the pace, order, location, and content of a lesson” for each student. Most technology systems on the market today fall into this category, which is why he focused his study on this aspect of computer-based education.

By contrast, the broader term “personalized learning” centers on the process of learning, rather than honing in on the delivery of content, Enyedy says. This approach refers to the way “teachers or learning environments can vary the resources, activities, and teaching techniques to effectively engage as many students as possible,” his report states.

Based on his findings, Enyedy advises district officials to take several steps when weighing the merits of personalized instruction:

  • Invest incrementally in technology. Policymakers should take a skeptical view of claims about what can be accomplished with computerized learning, unless it is supported by research-based evidence.
  • Conduct more research on the effects of personalized learning in K-12: Much of the evidence supporting technology’s potentially positive impact is based on research with undergraduates, who may be at different stages of development and motivation than pre-college students.
  • Set clearer definitions about the features of technology, and expectations for personalized instruction in the classroom. Shared definitions and ideas will help researchers more concretely define best practices in personalized instruction.
  • Test and validate software and hardware tools. Ed-tech developers should be encouraged to work with researchers and teachers in this effort, because market forces alone cannot be trusted to sort out which systems are effective.
  • Make professional development part of the implementation. A substantial investment in helping teachers learn how to use technology is a key component of working toward desired educational outcomes, Enyedy argues.

Showing Promise

Of all the approaches to using personalized instruction, those that rely on “blended learning"—which combines tech-based and person-to-person instruction—show the greatest potential academic benefits, he found. But blended learning strategies also tend to carry the highest costs, while producing only “moderate to mixed results.”

A RAND study, for instance, found that Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1—which showed positive effects for students in the second year of implementation—was substantially more expensive than business-as-usual with standard textbooks, but that this cost premium was lower if the district already had strong technological infrastructure.

Blended learning environments require investing in the technological infrastructure, licensing fees, and professional development for teachers and administrators on how to use the features, and how to integrate them into daily classroom practice.

Related stories:

for the latest news on ed-tech policies, practices, and trends.

Related Tags:

A version of this news article first appeared in the Digital Education blog.