Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carlee Nelson
Over the last couple of decades, our classrooms and students have been constantly
inundated with technology, which has been changing how students are learning, interacting, and
thinking. As the landscape has changed, there are some that assert that school is not keeping up.
Beginning in the 1920s, there have been various attempts to use adapted learning technology and
automated teachers to meet student needs and personalize education. However, different
members in the education technology field argue that personalizing education is more
detrimental than beneficial. A challenge with discussing personalized learning is that it has a
variety of definitions: using technology to give students more freedom to control their education
experience (Riley, 2014a, para. 2); programmed instruction (Watters, 2016, para. 18);
differentiated learning paths and constant feedback (Hernandez, 2014); or adjusting the
difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students test scores (Kohn,
This essay will define personalized learning and personalization as instruction that uses
technology to individualize the learning experience to each student. In fact, this individualized
instruction and student differences are key arguments of the supporters of personalized learning.
Currently, there are dozens of initiatives, grants, and supporters of this form of personalized
learning. These supporters claim that new developments in technology and software can provide
personalization, which could then improve student learning and performance. However, there is
an opposing group with significant arguments against personalized learning; specifically, they
achievement; there is more student control, more differentiation, and greater feedback. The
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 2
majority of the support comes from textbook and technology companies with two of the biggest
supporters of personalized learning being Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Both of them have
invested heavily in artificial intelligence and/or adaptive learning technology and they firmly
believe in technology and personalized learnings ability to improve test scores and performance.
A strength of adaptive technology is that there have been advancements that enable it to collect
information on student habits, performance, and preferences. This information can then help
personalize instruction to each student because it can better predict their needs and preferences.
Much of these individuals involvement has been monetary. For instance, Mark
Zuckerberg recently gave funds to various charter schools in Silicon Valley to pilot a
personalized learning platform, Basecamp, that gives students access to all of the topics
(modules) they need to learn and then they can decide the pace, place, and content for each
lesson. Zuckerbergs involvement in education is relatively new, while Bill Gates has been a
central figure in education for decadesfrom policies to researchand Gates claims that
personalized learning technology can bridge the achievement gap. In an interview with The
Verge, he describes how personalized learning can prevent boredom of the advanced students
and help poor performing students get caught up (Newton, 2016). His overall claim is that
personalized instruction will give students the power to move at their own pace and skill level.
Alex Hernandez (2014), a partner at Charter School Growth Fund, described a handful of
supporting claims that echo both Gates and Zuckerberg. His first argument is that personalized
learning is better able to account for student differences and variation in background knowledge
and that standards and grades are arbitrary. Like Gates, he claims that personalized learning
helps bridge achievement gaps by helping lower performing students catch up and challenging
the advanced students. Next, he argues that there can be an increase in quantity and speed of
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 3
feedback because it can come from multiple sources. His final argument is that students can own
their learning. Other proponents of technology also praise its ability to provide individualized
In their book, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the
World Learns, Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2011) applaud personalized learnings ability to
provide courses and classes that a school cannot. Various reasons can keep a school from being
able to offer certain classes, but technology can provide students with the opportunity to learn
about different topics that they wouldnt be able to otherwise (ex. foreign languages, coding,
architecture, various sciences, etc.). There are also many resources that have standardized
videos, practice, and assessments, like Khan Academy, that are used to help struggling or
advanced students. These and similar resources are being used to further individualize,
There are many more arguments against personalized learning than support, which Alex
Hernandez (2014) (a member of the support) even admits. Personalized learning overlooks
many key parts of school and the opponents to personalized learning bring that to light. One
writer, Ben Riley (2014), directly argues against Hernandezs arguments for personalized
learning. His arguments are that there are better ways than personalized learning to help
individuals succeed, create a learning environment that meets them at their ability level, and
recognize their learning differences than personalized learning. The opposition to personalized
learning asserts that it eliminates the social aspects and benefits of school, students arent fit to
control their learning, it doesnt compare to the quality of instruction of teachers, and is invasive
of students privacy.
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 4
constructed nature of learning and its role in school in his post Rebirth of the teaching machine
through the seduction of data analytics: This time its personal. He claims that student-to-
student interactions are a key to school because they encourage social, emotional, cultural, and
deeply intrapersonal experiences (para. 48). As our peers question and challenge our beliefs
and views, we are forced to learn from and evaluate them. If students are given computers to
personalize their learning, then they will miss the opportunities to have group discussions,
debates, and peer feedback in real time with facial and body expressions. Students should have
The various interactions in the classroom also enhance learning and create a sense of
community in the classroom. In a blog post by Dan Meyer (2013), Mike Caulfield, the director
of blended and networked learning at Washington State University Vancouver and an editor for
the EDUCAUSE Review, asserts that structured discussion is how we externalize thought so
that we can tinker with it and refactor it (para. 5). Another opponent and education writer,
Audrey Watters (2014), adds to the discussion by questioning the effects on the communal goals
of educationshe asks questions like, What happens to the idea that we must work through
ideas together? (para. 27). A goal of many schools is to create an individual that is prepared
to participate in the world, which requires the ability to cooperate and work with others.
Hernandezs three arguments. Rileys first counterclaim is against Hernandezs argument that
personalized learning honors background knowledge: Riley claims that we should take note of
and focus our instruction on the cognitive similarities. Students shared interests (ex. pop
culture) can be used to reach them as they are able to identify with the content. Hernandezs
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 5
next argument is that personalized learning can provide more feedback, but Riley responds that
more doesnt necessarily mean better (para. 5). For instance, teachers can give detailed
feedback and suggestions based on students previous work, discussions in class, or what their
peers are doing, while many technology devices can only give right/wrong answers.
Next, Riley (2014b) claims that Alexs argument about students needing to own their
learning simply reiterates the aspirational goals of personalized learning (para.6). He agrees
with the concept of students developing confidence, but isnt sure if personalized learning is the
best method to accomplish that. One of Rileys last arguments is that evidence for the success of
technology interventions is minimal with the greatest effect size of .52 (para. 8). Mark
Zuckerberg and Bill Gates argue that personalized learning has greater achievement, but it lacks
substantial support. Granted this evidence is from a meta-analysis of only 130 interventions and
there might have been successful studies, but this data cant be completely disregarded.
Mark Zuckerbergs learning platform and concept of giving students control has potential
as it lets students own their learning and that ownership can raise confidence. Students should
have a say in their learning and control of different aspects, but there are arguments against
giving it all to them. In another post, Dont Personalize Learning, Riley (2014a) argues
against the path and pace arguments. As far as the path argument, there is evidence that
background knowledge is needed to learn somethingif we let students pick what they want to
learn and they dont have the necessary knowledge, and then they will most likely struggle.
Riley then cites research that says, learners often misregulate their learning, exerting control in
Another argument for student control is pace. This argument means that students will be
able to decide how quickly they move through different topics. However, this argument assumes
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 6
that students have the motivation to work. Riley (2014a) argues that many students struggle with
being motivated to work on tasks and keep moving towards a goal and he references cognitive
science findings that our minds are not built to think (para. 8). This doesnt suggest that
students should never think or take on challenging subjects, but asserts that, if given the choice,
it is more likely that students would move slower. In order to give them some control, students
should be given the opportunity to work at their own pace, but teachers can easily facilitate that.
Both Riley and Watters make a case for the powerful influence and effects of teachers.
Teachers can observe student difficulty with quick informal assessments and observations that
will immediately influence their instruction. They can observe a student during class and use
their interactions to discover her preferences, needs, learning style, and many other factors that
would influence her learning. In Rileys (2014a) words, effective instruction requires
understanding the varying cognitive abilities of students and finding ways to impart knowledge
in light of that variation (para. 11). Body language tells a lot about how people are feeling and
teachers, not technology, can recognize positive or negative body language, constantly informing
Also, teachers provide one thing that technology never can: emotion. They are able to
show compassion, understanding, enthusiasm, frustration, and excitement. There is much more
to school than learning about facts; students are learning skills and tools that go beyond their
academic performance. In order for learning to occur, students have basic needs that have to be
met and teachers contribute to and are major part of creating a safe, exciting, and fun
environment. Just like student-to-student interactions help develop their character and social
Watters (2014) also expresses concerns with the use of adaptive learning technology and
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 7
how it stores and uses student data. Knewton, a test prep company, is working with major
publishers to develop content with adaptive learning technology. This technology collects over a
million data points to adapt and change the algorithms to match student learning paths. One of
the concerns is that the data is only adjusting algorithms of existing and standard pathways and
not truly adapting to the intricate differences in students (para. 19-20). Another concerning part
with adaptive technology is the invasion of students lives and personal information as their data
is used and stored without many of them being aware that it.
Conclusion
Overall, the defense of personalized learning is minimal and only has a few key points
focused around student control and achievement. The opposition brings claims against these
points and also brings up other arguments. Ideologically, personalized learning (providing
individualized instruction that recognizes student differences and abilities) is something that the
supporters and opponents all agree on, but the concept of handing the instruction over to
technology is where the break occurs. People are social beings and school is a social
environment, but personalized learning threatens that idea. Besides being invasive of student
and teacher information, technology is also unable to provide the same kind of differentiation,
attention, and quality feedback that teachers can. In the end, school should be an interactive,
engaging, and safe place to be and an overreliance on technology can rid it of its very heart.
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 8
References
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.
http://thinkschools.tumblr.com/post/89846115921/personalize-learning-please
Kohn, A. (2015, Feb 23). Four reasons to worry about personalized learning. Retrieved from
http://www.alfiekohn.org/blogs/personalized/
McRae, P. (2013, April 14). Rebirth of the teaching machine through the seduction of data
http://philmcrae.com/2/post/2013/04/rebirth-of-the-teaching-maching-through-the-
seduction-of-data-analytics-this-time-its-personal1.html
http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2014/dont-personalize-learning/
Newton, C. (2015). Can AI fix education? We ask Bill Gates: How personalized learning is
gates-interview-education-software-artificial-intelligence
http://kuranga.tumblr.com/post/89290487631/dont-personalize-learning
http://kuranga.tumblr.com/post/90316611826/the-ideology-of-personalization
Watters, A. (2016, Dec 19). Education technology and the ideology of personalization. Retrieved
from http://hackeducation.com/2016/12/19/top-ed-tech-trends-personalization
Watters, Audrey. (2014, Sept 11). The problem with personalization. Retrieved from
AGAINST PERSONALIZED LEARNING 9
http://hackeducation.com/2014/09/11/personalization