Running head: PERSONALIZED LEARNING 1

Personalized Learning

Chelsea OBrien

February 25, 2017

University of New England

PERSONALIZED LEARNING 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the teaching theory of Personalized Learning.

Through this literature review I hope to answer three essential questions to understanding and

implementing personalized learning; what is personalized learning, how does technology support

teachers in implementing a personalized learning plan and finally how is personalized learning

connected to student achievement? Through this literature review we will discuss the challenges

of implementing personalized learning, student accountability and the challenges schools face

with personalized learning.

PERSONALIZED LEARNING 3

Introduction

Through the history of education there has been a form of personalized learning. As

education faces another reform a new interactive learning method is being implemented in

schools across the country; personalized learning. Personalized learning was first introduced to

education in 1962 as Personalized System of Instruction, or PSI (Keefe 2007). Since its

introduction it has transformed through individualization, differentiated instruction, and adaptive

instruction (Keefe 2007) to name a few instruction techniques. As its latest form, personalized

learning poses several challenges to educators, administrators as well as the physical buildings

themselves. It focuses on an individual learning at their own pace, through their interests and

ability level, while working collaboratively with staff, administration, and their parents. Due to

the unique nature of personalized learning, entire classrooms are transformed to accommodate

the learning style and tools necessary for student learning (Fisher & White 2016).

Personalize learning provides the opportunity for students to learn regardless of their

ability while collaborating on what they would like to learn and how they will demonstrate their

learning. There are different levels of personalized learning ranging from individualization,

isolated classrooms, schools and districts (Keefe 2007). Regardless of the level of personalized

learning, each individual plan is designed specifically around the childs interests, strengths,

weaknesses and readiness for learning (Rickabaugh 2015).

While personalized learning is still in the early phases of being incorporated as a teaching

method, it still faces several challenges. With current state standards for each grade level and

standardized assessments putting increasing pressure on students to master certain learning

concepts in a given time frame, students learning through personalized learning do not adhere to

these timelines and therefore can face difficulty with grading and state assessments (Kate 2010)
PERSONALIZED LEARNING 4

Review

Personalized learning gives every child regardless of their ability level the opportunity to

demonstrate growth and learn at their individual level, through a plan designed specifically for

them and with them (Keefe 2007). As with other new learning methods, in order for personalized

learning to be successful, there are changes which must occur in the classroom. According to an

article by Hyslop and Mead (2015), implementing personalized learning to a school is an

involved process and should be done slowly. Pilot classes should be carefully set up and

observed. Agreeing with the importance of pilot classrooms and slow implementation of

personalized learning is the report written by Fisher and White (2016) from the blended and

personalized learning conference. Hyslop et. al (2015) and Fisher and White (2016) suggest

allowing volunteer teachers to pilot personalized learning on a classroom scale. Due to the

unique nature of personalized learning, it is imperative to have a successful pilot and then mimic

the environment of the pilot when implementing in additional classrooms. Personalized learning

forces the teacher to change their role in the classroom. As Kate (2010) explains significant

professional development is necessary for a teacher to feel confident and understand all that is

involved when teaching using personalized learning. Fisher et. al (2016) continue with this idea

when they discuss the need for professional development and observing coworkers for guidance

and support. These are crucial steps for a successful implementation of personalized learning

because teachers must understand and embrace their new roles as facilitators and advisors.

Keefe (2007) believes a classroom environment must also change, allowing for open

collaborative work, discussions, and technology. The teachers role switches from instructor to

supporter and their classroom must also adapt. Keefe (2007) believes personalized learning does

not have to rely heavily on technology and can encompass several learning methods such as
PERSONALIZED LEARNING 5

project-based learning, topic studies, cooperative learning and guided practice while Hyslop et.

al (2015) acknowledge that while technology is not a requirement, it can add great value to a

personalized learning experience through resources such as Kahn Academy which can allow for

students to increase their productivity and help schools be cost efficient while reaching a larger

number of students needs. In addition to students utilizing technology to further their education,

Kate (2010) suggests teachers take advantage of technology to share and build their personalized

learning knowledge and methods for the better of their teaching and their students.

Similar to the teachers role changing, a students role is transformed in personalized

learning. In a traditional educational setting a student is the receiver of information and

demonstrates their learning through expected mastery of taught standards and their

demonstration of knowledge on standardized assessments. Personalized learning holds students

accountable for their learning by involving them in designing their learning plan as well as their

goals. Students work with teachers, parents and administration to recognize their interests,

strengths and areas in need of improvement and develop goals while expressing how they would

like to demonstrate their learning i.e. activities, resources and what they need from their teachers

(Rickabaugh 2015). Keefe (2007) agrees with Rickabaugh and describes students as active

workers. Keefe believes assessments should be integrated into a student work rather than the

standard end of unit/year formal assessments and grade a students learning on performance and

achievement of goals. Schedules are based around the individual student and therefore a student

develops a deep level of ownership for their learning regardless of their current level.

In schools who have implemented personalized learning, teachers found students enjoyed

their new learning style and those who were at or below average displayed academic growth at a

faster rate than traditional education format. These teachers also found a decrease in negative
PERSONALIZED LEARNING 6

behavior because teachers and students are equally invested in their education (Rickabaugh

2015).

While personalized learning is being implemented and explored throughout the country,

there remains great challenges to its widespread success. As discussed by Kate (2010) the Obama

administration recognized there were still areas of education that were needed to accurately

assess 21st century skills which personalized learning envelops. These assessments should utilize

technology whenever possible and address skills such as; collaboration, communication,

problem-solving and critical thinking. In addition to new assessments, they also recognized as

Hyslop et. al (2015) also discuss the current end of year formal assessments do not adapt

themselves to personalized learning. Current grade level standards that are expected to be

mastered by year end do not coincide with the fluidity and individuality of personalized learning.

Until personalized learning becomes widespread, schools will continue to see these assessments

as a struggle for those who at years end are still below grade level however, Rickabaugh (2015)

found an increase on standardized testing for all students.

As mentioned before, teachers will need to embrace and change their way of teaching in

order for personalized learning to be successful. Hyslop et. al (2015) expressed the importance of

providing professional development prior to teachers implementing personalized learning in their

classroom. They state those who spoke at the conference discussed the importance of teachers

viewing this as a positive change to education and a means to improving the entire school

climate and community. While they admit, there is a steep learning curve for teachers and

students, they allowed interested teachers to implement personalized learning first and let it

spread to the entire school as staff felt confident in their ability to be successful. Part of this was

helped by allowing colleagues to observe each other and the pilot classroom. The results from
PERSONALIZED LEARNING 7

the pilot rooms were carefully analyzed and additional training provided. In the Education

Technology plan from the Obama administration, Kate (2010) recognizes the importance of

transforming the classroom from a place of isolated learning to a collaborate place.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I realize that personalized learning is a relatively new teaching method in

which there is a great deal of opportunity for students and teachers to evolve. Reading several

studies, discussions from conferences as well as a summary of the Obama administration

technology plan has led me to believe personalized learning is a necessary change to education to

provide students with the skills to be successful in our ever-changing and competitive world. In a

time where children tend to avoid responsibility, personalized learning puts their learning in their

own hands and makes them an active part of their education and holds them responsible for their

own achievement. I have learned that the teacher must have understanding and embrace their

new role of facilitator or advisor as it is crucial for a student to be successful with their

individualized plan and make continual growth. Personalized learning is drastically different

from the classroom experience we know and are comfortable with, but when provided with the

appropriate classroom environment and educational tools, it can be very successful for students

of all abilities. While students and teachers alike have embraced this learning style, I have

learned there are important challenges which the individual teacher cannot change. As teachers,

we are held responsible for our students success and/or failure on standardized assessments and

mastery of the given common core state standard by the end of the school year. I am weary of

how students who begin the school year would be able to master end of year standards while

moving at their own pace, which would be slower than a typical classroom. In order to feel

confident that these students would indeed make the growth they would in a regular educational
PERSONALIZED LEARNING 8

setting, I would need to conduct further research on this particular area. In addition to growth and

assessment concerns, I also do not feel confident on the dependency of technology. While

articles stated technology is not critical for the success of personalized learning, others argued it

was invaluable. This would be an added expense to schools and teachers in an already tight

budget. At this point I have a better understanding of what personalized learning is, how students

are held accountable for their achievement and how technology can support teachers and

students alike but do not feel comfortable implementing this method in my classroom. The next

step is for further exploration and analyzation of pilot classrooms and districts to confirm student

growth and potential policy change to address assessment challenges.

References:

Ash, K. (2010). U.S.Ed-Tech Plan Urges Rethinking in K-12 Schools. Education Week, 29(24).1.
PERSONALIZED LEARNING 9

Fisher, J. F., White, J., Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive, I., & Highlander, I. (2016).

From the Frontlines: Takeaways from the 2016 Blended and Personalized Learning

Conference. Clayton Christensen Institute For Disruptive Innovation. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED568681

Hyslop, A., Mead, S., & Bellwether Education, P. (2015). A Path to the Future: Creating

Accountability for Personalized Learning. Bellwether Education Partners.

Keefe, J. W. (2007). WHAT IS personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217-223. Retrieved

from https://une.idm.oclc.org/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com/une.idm.oclc.org/docview/218478857?accountid=12756

Rickabaugh, J., & Temple University, C. L. (2015). Including the Learner in Personalized

Learning. Connect: Making Learning Personal. Center On Innovations In Learning,

Temple University