Education WeeK Spotlight on MATH Instruction
n
2014
edweek.org
On Personalized Learning
Acceptable-use policy
Using
technology
properly
Copyright guidelines
Creative commons
Dealing with
technology
Searching and
viewing text,
video, and
audio
Evaluating
resources
Communicating
respectfully
Content-management systems
Search engines
Scholarly works
Library / texts
Filtering software
Synthesizing
and creating
Blogs
Social bookmarking
Managing
multiple-user
accounts
Web-clipping tools
API widgets and
personal pages
Videoconferencing
Text / writing
Presentation software
Subscription readers
Social networks
Debating
Podcasts
Reflecting
Tagging
for efficient
retrieval
Collaborating
and socializing
Wikis
Producing
Content
Notetaking
THE NETWORKED
STUDENT
Taking control and
responsibility for
learning
Open educational resources
Avoiding
inappropriate
content
Organizing
content
Practicing
Digital
Literacy
Hand: iStockphoto/kizilkayaphotos; Icons: iStockphoto/PJRego SOURCE: Wendy Drexler, 2010
Practicing
Digital
Responsibility
Communicating
Questioning
Digital posters
Video
Email
Microblogging
Instant messaging
Audio
Mobile texting
and calling
Published May 22, 2013, in Education Week
‘Personal Learning Environments’
Focus on the Individual
I By Katie Ash
t’s clear that more and more schools are
aiming to prepare students for a global
marketplace that requires networked
learning experiences, an understanding
of digital citizenship, and a way to navigate and organize a stream of information
and resources from a variety of different
sources—all characteristics emphasized in
a “personal learning environment,” an educational approach the New Media Consor-
Editor’s Note: Personalized learning offers the
promise of individualized educational opportunities
for students but comes with a unique set of logistic
and technology concerns. In this Spotlight, discover
how educators are defining personal learning
environments, see the vastly different approaches
districts are taking with personalized learning, and
hear what massively open online courses (MOOCs)
might mean for K-12 education.
Table of CONTENTS:
1 ‘Personal Learning Environments’
Focus on the Individual
3 Race to Top Districts ‘Personalize’ Plans
5 MOOCs To Bring Personalized Learning,
Big Changes to K-12, Ed. Professor
Predicts
Commentary:
6 4 Essential Attributes of Personalized
Learning
7 Standardization? Personalization? Or Both?
8 Fighting the Enemies of Personalized
Learning
Resources:
10Resources on Personalized Learning
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
tium’s 2012 K-12 Horizon report listed as a
key ed-tech trend to watch.
What’s less clear is what exactly a personal learning environment is. Its relatively
new and flexible structure can make what’s
known as a PLE hard to pin down for many
people, even though the use of the term, and
approaches associated with it, are being embraced by a growing number of schools.
While PLEs are commonly created using
specific technologies and tools, such as onlineresource organizers like Symbaloo or EverNote, the model is not wedded to a specific
technology but rather to a process that aims
to visualize and organize the influx of information and resources that students are confronted with daily. It is essentially an educational response to the overload of information
in the digital age.
PLEs consist of a wide range of connections
with both digital and nondigital resources.
They blur the lines between formal and informal learning. And precisely because they
are individualized to the needs and interests
of the learner, each one can look completely
different.
“It’s really about melding together your
own personal learning space with all these
different resources,” said Wendy Drexler, the
director of online development in the office of
continuing education at Brown University.
But this approach can be a tough sell in
schools, where the concept isn’t likely to be
seen in its full-fledged form, said Ms. Drexler. “What I see more of happening is people
taking bits and pieces ... and integrating it,”
she said.
Ms. Drexler conducted research on PLEs
with a group of 7th graders at the 1,150-student P.K. Yonge Developmental Research
School in Gainesville, Fla. in 2010 using Symbaloo with the help of the students’ science
teacher Randy Hollinger.
Symbaloo is a free service that allows users
to bookmark Web pages, videos, and other resources and digital tools onto one page where
each tile represents a different link. The company, which was founded in the Netherlands
but has offices in California, has created
SymbalooEDU to cater to the needs of educators—one of the service’s biggest user bases.
In addition, Symbaloo provides certification
programs for teachers to learn how to incorporate personal learning environments and
technology into their classrooms.
At the school where the pilot took place, students created their own Symbaloo pages with
links to websites they used regularly, such as
their email accounts, links to their own blogs,
and their school’s website.
Next, Ms. Drexler and Mr. Hollinger taught
students how to use the PLEs to enhance
their research strategies during a six-week
unit on venomous creatures.
“
n
edweek.org
2
One of the things that’s important is making sure
[students] actually know how to do a good search
beyond Google.”
Wendy Drexler
Director, Online Development, Office of Continuing Education, Brown University
Students used their Symbaloo pages to
bookmark information, keep track of sources,
and save links to experts in science who
would later review their projects.
Ms. Drexler and Mr. Hollinger used that opportunity to teach students how to determine
the legitimacy of different Internet resources
and how to tell if the information they found
was accurate and unbiased.
“This sort of learning actually helps students organize themselves in a very busy
world,” Mr. Hollinger said. “Before, when students were working, they would get lost in the
hubbub of everything that happens online. We
found it was essential for them to be able to
create a space [for those resources].” During
the pilot study at the Florida school, Mr. Hollinger and Ms. Drexler found that the biggest
challenges were logistical—struggling with
slow Internet connections and with Web filters that blocked sites students wanted to use,
such as YouTube.
To comply with student safety regulations
and keep track of what students were doing,
Mr. Hollinger installed a program on his computer that allowed him to see what students
were doing on their computers—essentially,
he had a window into how each student approached his or her schoolwork.
Striking a Balance
Striking that balance between allowing students to explore the Internet’s full potential
and keeping them safe and on task can be
challenging, he pointed out, but Mr. Hollinger
has noticed that when students are allowed
more freedom, they are likely to take on more
responsibility as well.
Since the pilot two years ago, Mr. Hollinger
has moved to an independent school—the
Technology Engineering Science Leadership
Academy, or TESLA, in Santa Rosa Beach,
Fla.— that is entirely structured around
PLEs, he said, and in the three years that he
has used the approach in his classes, only a
small number of disciplinary problems have
occurred. “What we found was that students
are enjoying the process of learning with a
personal learning environment so much that
they really didn’t want to ruin it,” he said.
“They took responsibility for their own learning and took personal responsibility for the
overall culture and environment in the class-
room.”
At his new school, students begin their day
by logging into their Symbaloo pages, which
provide links to websites for each of their
classes. Students can then see the resources
their teachers have posted, complete assignments, and turn in their schoolwork.
The school, which operates on a projectbased learning model, uses Symbaloo as its
backbone, Mr. Hollinger said.
One particular challenge for many schools
that want to use the approach is a lack of
technology tools to help students take ownership of their PLEs, said Ms. Drexler. What’s
ideal for fostering a strong PLE initiative, she
said, is a 1-to-1 school model, in which each
student has access to his or her own digital
device—a laptop, a netbook, a tablet, or a
smartphone.
Throughout the pilot, Ms. Drexler and
Mr. Hollinger helped students learn how to
vet resources and determine whether they
contained legitimate information. They also
required students to expand their PLEs by
reaching out to experts to ask them for help
or advice on their research projects.
“One of the things that’s important is making sure [students] actually know how to do a
good search beyond Google,” Ms. Drexler said.
While students may be tech-savvy, they need
to be taught how to use those skills in an educational and professional setting, she said.
Sharing Information
Shannon Miller is a teacher-librarian in the
600-student Van Meter school district outside
Des Moines, Iowa, which serves students in
grades K-12.
In her district, 6th through 12th graders
receive their own laptops under a program
that started two years ago. While elementary
pupils do not have their own devices, they also
learn in technology-rich environments using
tablets and other computers, Ms. Miller said.
Teachers may need to create PLEs for
younger students, but as students get older,
they can take on the aggregation of resources
on their own and customize their PLEs based
on how they use them, said Ms. Miller.
For example, older students could customize
a PLE by adding links to non-school-related
resources, such as social-networking sites,
blogs they are interested in, or videos they
Advertisement
Back to Table of Contents
where learning clicks
It clicks for teachers
“Students become
the owners of their
own learning, and that is
something I appreciate
because I’m not always
going to be there
for them.”
Gema S.
Teacher
With Edgenuity™, teaching has never been more rewarding.
From empowering data tools that monitor student progress to customizable
courses, our enhanced technology and diverse suite of online curriculum is helping
teachers become life-long believers…and students become life-long learners.
WhereLearningClicks.com | 877.7CLICKS
Hear more success stories like Gema’s at:
wherelearningclicks.com
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
n
edweek.org
3
Published March 27, 2013, in Education Week
have found. They can also rearrange the
way the tiles are organized on their pages,
such as by grouping school-related links
and putting non-school-related ones in a
different area.
Ms. Miller began using Symbaloo several years ago as a way to organize information for students as well as connect to
the outside community.
“It’s a great way for [students] to share
with their parents,” she said. “All those
things coming together in one spot makes
what we’re doing in school more transparent [for our parents].”
Being in a 1-to-1 computing environment has helped connect students from
the small rural district to teachers, experts, and authors far beyond Iowa, Ms.
Miller said. “It has opened us up to the
world.”
Shelley Breivogel, a 2nd grade teacher
at the 750-student Scott Elementary
School in Evansville, Ind., discovered
PLEs when teachers at her school began a
curriculum-mapping project. They needed
a way to organize the curricular resources
they found, and printing materials out
and filing them seemed cumbersome and
even ridiculous in the digital age.
Since then, Ms. Breivogel has embraced
PLEs as a way to share information with
her students as well. She organizes units
through Web mixes she creates in Symbaloo and shares them with her classes. For
example, a Web mix may include links to
resources that explain each of the standards the class will cover that month.
In light of the Common Core State Standards, and the related online assessments
that are scheduled to be integrated into
schools during the 2014-15 school year,
Ms. Breivogel sees PLEs as a way to help
better prepare students.
“[Students] are going to have to be able
to search for information online, make
connections, analyze data, move from one
source to another, and compare and contrast. That’s a lot of higher-order thinking
skills,” she said. “That [use of PLEs] lends
itself to enabling students to be more prepared for those types of assessments.”
Coverage of the education industry and K-12
innovation is supported in part by a grant
from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Education Week retains sole editorial control
over the content of this coverage.
Race to Top Districts
‘Personalize’ Plans
By Michele McNeil
T he 16 Race to the Top district winners, pushed by $400 million in federal grants that put a premium on
personalized learning, are embarking
on vastly different makeovers of the classroom
experience—from districtwide approaches to a
narrower blueprint focused on middle school
math.
Despite the divergent approaches, a review of
the winning applications shows those districts
are tapping similar tactics: mobile devices and
individualized learning plans for students, personalized learning coaches for teachers, and
data dashboards that collect all student learning information in one place.
What’s more, many of the districts are embracing the philosophy that learning isn’t defined by time spent in class, but by mastery of
a particular subject or lesson.
For example, the Middletown city school district in New York is piloting a policy in which
elementary students advance to the next grade
when they show mastery of grade-level standards. In Carson City, Nev., high school students who master their high school subjects
in the middle of the year can move right into
earning college credit.
Last year’s grant contest was the first time
the U.S. Department of Education used its signature Race to the Top brand to try to push
for education redesign at the local level, specifically around personalized learning.
In putting the grant money up for grabs by
districts, federal officials sketched out a broad
definition of what they wanted in a personalized learning environment: one in which educators used data and 21st-century tools—such as
mobile devices and “learning algorithms”—to
customize instruction to the needs of individual
students.
The original Race to the Top competition,
launched with money from the 2009 federal
economic-stimulus measure, was considered
successful in getting states to adopt certain
policies favored by the Obama administration,
such as charter school expansion and teacher
evaluations tied to student academic growth.
But it remains unclear how successful the
district iteration, funded through fiscal 2012
congressional appropriations, will be, experts
in personalized learning say.
“What Race to Top does best is change the
fundamental condition under which school
happens—whether that’s policy or market conditions,” said Michael B. Horn, the education
executive director of the Innosight Institute, a
San Mateo, Calif.-based think tank that promotes personalized learning. “But when Race
to the Top delves into operations of school districts,” he said, “that’s a whole other matter.”
But if nothing else, Mr. Horn said, the latest
Race to the Top has “elevated student-centric
learning onto the radar.”
Local Leaders
In December, U.S. Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan announced the 16 district winners, which include three charter school districts, two educational cooperatives, one large
urban district (Miami-Dade County in Florida),
and 10 midsize districts. Grants ranged from
$10 million to $40 million. Mr. Duncan and
his staff have hailed the portfolio of winning
districts as leaders in upending the traditional
school experience.
Most of the winning districts plan to buy
new technology with their grants. In fact, a review of the project budgets for those districts
shows that at least $77 million of the $400 million total will be spent on technology—from
iPads to additional bandwidth for schools. For
example:
n The 12,000-student Metropolitan School Dis-
trict of Warren Township in Indianapolis
will buy 6,750 new iPads so elementary and
middle school students can, among other
activities, keep up to date on their progress
toward academic goals.
n In Guilford County, N.C., each of the district’s
17,000 students use hand-held devices to access digital content, a new online learning
platform, instructional software, and subscriptions to various services.
n The 345,000-student Miami-Dade system
will offer 30 new laptops for students in its
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
n
edweek.org
4
MAKING IT PERSONAL
As part of last year’s Race to the Top contest for districts, applicants had to design a four-year plan that would personalize learning for students.
Through programs and technology, the 16 winners approach personalized learning in different ways.
DISTRICT
AWARD (in millions)
SCOPE
DETAILS
TECHNOLOGY NEEDS
Carson City, Nevada
$ 10.0
4 middle and high schools,
4,109 students
E-portfolios for students to track academic progress, goals;
high schools organized around six career clusters; projectbased learning to further develop students’ interests;
professional development for teachers on student goal-setting.
Laptops for program implementation specialists at each
school; new e-portfolio software.
Charleston County,
South Carolina
19.4
19 schools, 9,493 students
New digital learning platform to capture all student data in
one place; teachers use new platform to assign tasks and use
rapid-response daily assessments; digital personalized learning
plan for every student; project-based learning and online
courses to meet individual student interests.
Mobile device for every student and teacher.
Galt Joint Union,
California
10.0
6 elementary schools,
3,800 students
Personalized learning plans for every student; computeradaptive tests to inform lessons; personalized learning coaches
for teachers.
Increased access for students and teachers to "virtual
learning devices."
Green River Educational
Cooperative, Kentucky
40.0
112 schools in all grades,
59,311 students
Individual career profiles for every student; grouping and
regrouping students to tailor learning; personalized learning
teams will work with school leaders, teachers; elimination of
school time for students who demonstrate off-campus subject
mastery.
Wi-Fi on school buses, with access expanded later to
churches and businesses.
Guilford County,
North Carolina
30.0
24 middle schools,
17,000 students
Personalized learning plans for students; students grouped
into learning cohorts; new “personalized learning environment
facilitators” to coach school personnel.
Mobile, hand-held device for each student and teacher,
which features digital content, online learning platform,
instructional software, subscriptions.
Harmony Public Schools,
Texas
29.9
36 middle and high schools,
12,240 students
Project-based learning, goal-setting, and academic and career
maps for students; “custom day” schedule with 2 hours
a day of remediation in math/English, advanced classes, or
electives; data dashboard to combine all data points into
a single, user-friendly Web portal accessible to students,
parents, educators.
Portable devices for each student to take home.
Idea Public Schools,
Texas
29.2
All 25 schools,
12,617 students
One-on-one coaching for educators to use personalized
learning in core classes; new dashboard to incorporate all
student-assessment data; more digital learning tools and
software.
Offer more books on digital devices, add adaptive reading
software to computer labs,
create a tablet "app" for educator observation tool.
Iredell-Statesville,
North Carolina
20.0
15 middle and high schools,
9,321 students
30 minutes of “SWAG” time (or Supporting Warriors to Achieve
Greatness) to pursue personal interests; college and
career mapping for students; blended learning coach in each
school; in-person and digital instruction for students.
Digital device for each student to take home.
KIPP DC,
District of Columbia
10.0
All 10 schools,
3,040 students
New learning-management system to combine assessment/
achievement data into one spot; resident teachers guide
small-group learning while lead teachers concentrate on
personalized learning.
Scale up iPad distribution for teachers, increase iPad and
computer access for students, increase use of software such
as Dreambox for math, create online observational
platform for teacher evaluations.
Lindsay Unified,
California
10.0
All 8 schools,
4,074 students
New digital learning (student) platform with standards/
assessment data in one place; personalized “sequence of
instruction” for students based on placement tests and
updated with formative-assessment data; new digital facilitator
platform that provides instructional content tied to standards,
intensive teacher-training modules in technology, student
leadership.
Netbooks, tablets, or mobile devices to take home.
Metropolitan School
District of Warren Township,
Indiana
28.6
16 schools in all grades,
11,611 students
Individualized goal-setting for students, with the ability to
monitor progress through a digital platform; teacher training
in new technologies; students in grades 7-12 use online
coursework to earn high school credit based on competency
versus seat time; extended school hours to increase Internet
access for students.
Laptops in 30 wireless, high school English classrooms; 6,750
iPads across all
grades; $25 in apps per iPad per year; 110 fortified iPads for
special needs students;
500 additional wireless access points for high-density
buildings.
Middletown City School
District, New York
20.0
All 7 schools,
7,000 students
Transition to blended learning classrooms with personal and
digital instruction; creation of new Hybrid Learning
Management System that provides digital content for students
and the ability for teachers to monitor progress;
pilot a competency-based promotion policy for elementary
students (versus seat time).
iPads or similar tablets for all students in grades 8-12; 40
Chrome notebooks for
elementary students.
New Haven Unified,
California
29.4
13 schools,
12,719 students
Academic and career plans created for each student; parent
and student digital modules to track progress; teachers
use technology, online assessment, and open education
resources to free up time for small-group instruction.
Broadband devices for take-home use for 4,500 students and
170 teachers in high
school, and 430 teachers and 8,400 students in middle
school.
Puget Sound Educational
Service District, Washington
40.0
261 schools,
147,085 students
New regional data portal for students, teachers, parents;
personalized student plans for career and college; equip
all K-8 students with adaptive math instructional tools.
New digital tools, to be determined, to personalize STEM
learning.
Miami-Dade, Florida
30.0
49 middle schools,
at least 11,760 students
Replicating iPrep math model in all 49 middle schools with
personalized math learning plans for students; renovated,
high-tech classrooms, individualized instruction, student
assistance profiles to flag students at risk of failure.
Wireless technology for renovated math classrooms; 30 laptops
per classroom for students to take home; 60 laptops per
classroom for in-school use; laptops for 147 teachers.
St. Vrain Valley Schools,
Colorado
16.6
8 elementaries, two middle
schools, 1 high school,
5,757 students
Improving STEM in select schools by creating individualized
academic and career plans, expanding Web-based
“telementoring” between students and busy professionals;
creation of high school “innovation center” to provide
real-world experiences tailored to their interests with STEM
professionals.
Each "innovation center" high school student will have a
technology device.
—MICHELE McNEIL
SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education; Individual District Applications
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
highly individualized middle school math
program to take home.
n And elementary students in New York’s
7,000-student Middletown district, which
has budgeted for half its $10 million grant
on new devices, will share 40 new Google
Chrome netbooks.
And even in districts that don’t plan to buy
iPads or other tablets for students, the goal is
the same: expand Internet access so students
have more opportunity to learn outside the
physical boundaries of a school.
Green River’s Approach
The Green River Educational Cooperative
in Kentucky, which encompasses 112 schools
and 59,311 students in rural parts of the
state, will use its grant to put Wi-Fi on buses
so students can learn during long rides to
and from school. Eventually, the cooperative
wants to expand access to churches and businesses—an acknowledgment that in sparsely
populated areas, Internet access in each student’s home is no guarantee.
But Green River’s plan clearly states that it
“
for the 45,000-student district. “But that also
does not minimize the very important role of
the teacher.”
Getting students engaged in their own
learning—and allowing them to pursue their
own interests—is a common strategy of the
winning districts.
The 24,400-student Harmony public
schools, a charter school network in Texas,
has designed a “custom day” with two hours of
flextime for students to receive remediation in
math or English/language arts, take advanced
classes in those subjects, or pursue electives.
The Iredell-Statesville district in North Carolina gives students 30 minutes of “SWAG
time” (shorthand for one high school’s Supporting Warriors to Achieve Greatness program) to pursue personal interests—learning
to play the guitar or practicing French, for
example.
That is just a small part of a much more
comprehensive approach to customized learning, district officials say.
“I think the biggest change is the way instruction is delivered. This is a major culture
shift,” said Melanie Taylor, an associate superintendent of the 20,000-student Iredell-
There’s less lecture, less students sitting in desk.
There will be more of a rotation around projectbased learning and small-group instruction, and
more work happening on a device. More subtle will
be that the teacher is the leader.”
K elly M arcy
Executive Director, Student Services, Iredell-Statesville Schools
is “not a technology initiative.”
One of its primary components aims to
spark a culture shift in students by making
them more responsible for their own learning.
Students will start to align their learning
and goals with career aspirations even in the
early grades.
“I’m not talking about making Einsteins out
of 3-year-olds,” said George Wilson, the executive director of the Green River cooperative.
“It’s about having them say: ‘What I do now
matters about my future.’ “
In Charleston County, S.C., a new digital
learning platform will serve as one-stop shopping for all student data so parents, teachers,
and students can track academic progress.
“One of the most important things we’re
pushing is students owning their learning,”
said Lisa Herring, the associate superintendent for academic and instructional support
Statesville schools.
Making the change means incorporating
digital learning into the classroom, but it also
means using “blended learning coaches” in
each building who can help Iredell-Statesville
teachers use new technology and smallergroup instruction in their daily lessons.
“There’s less lecture, less students sitting in
desk. There will be more of a rotation around
project-based learning and small-group instruction, and more work happening on a device,” said Kelly Marcy, the executive director
of student services. “More subtle will be that
the teacher is the leader.”
Coverage of “deeper learning” that will prepare
students with the skills and knowledge needed to
succeed in a rapidly changing world is supported
in part by a grant from the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, at www.hewlett.org.
n
edweek.org
5
Published June 24, 2013, in Education Week
Digital Education Blog
MOOCs
To Bring
Personalized
Learning,
Big Changes
to K-12,
Ed. Professor
Predicts
By Benjamin Herold
L San Antonio
ehigh University education
professor Scott Garrigan
knows firsthand that many
educators find massively open
online courses, or MOOCs, threatening.
“Imagine every student engaged in
every classroom. I would love to do
that in my face-to-face classes, and
I don’t know how,” said Garrigan.
“They’ve done it. And it annoys me.”
But Garrigan, like a growing number of educators in higher ed, has
chosen to embrace the MOOC phenomenon. And with MOOC-like offerings on their way to K-12, high school
teachers should get ready to do the
same, he said.
That means getting ready for:
n “Interest-driven learning,” in which
students increasingly get to select
their own courses.
n Exponentially more students with
(online) access to the best teachers
and instructional materials.
n A tidal wave of new data that allow
teachers to quickly diagnose and
address students’ learning weaknesses.
n And a new emphasis on using that
same data to “evolve instruction”
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
n
edweek.org
6
Published November 4, 2013, in Education Week Vander Ark on Innovation
and change the way teachers go about
their work.
Already, said Garrigan, models like Khan
Academy have shown what works:
n Short videos that spend roughly 10 minutes on a single topic.
n A personal, collegial feel marked by conversational dialogue, handwritten notes,
and an informal style.
n “Retrieval feedback” that quizzes students and promotes learning retention
every five minutes or so.
n Deadlines for tests and homework.
n Study forums and groups.
“Our attention span can handle that,”
Garrigan said.
Some educators are prone to dismiss
some of those elements, he said. Take the
constant short check-ins of the “retrieval
feedback” quizzes. While many educators
may believe it to be a shallow educational
strategy, Garrigan told dozens of teachers
at the conference “that little thing promotes learning in ways that some of the
best talent in this room has had difficulty
doing.”
Likewise, said Garrigan, the opportunity for personalization in online courses
shouldn’t be dismissed.
“It sounds like an oxymoron, but there
is testimony [from higher ed] that it’s possible,” he said.
With dropout rates still alarmingly high
across the country, the potential benefits
can’t be ignored, he argued.
Of course, said Garrigan, there are challenges: Who will validate student learning?
Who is responsible for the quality of course
content? What about special education?
How will state departments of education
react?
But the “water has already begun trickling through the dike,” he said.
If K-12 teachers want to avoid getting
swept away by the coming flood, they’d
better be able to adapt, as some of their
counterparts in higher ed have already
begun doing.
The rapid transformation can be “tough
to swallow,” said Garrigan, “but I think,
‘OK, I have to change my views.’”
Commentary
4 Essential Attributes
of Personalized Learning
i By Tom Vander Ark
NACOL wrapped their tenth annual
conference this week in Orlando.
What used to be the Virtual School
Symposium is now the Blended and
Online Learning Symposium this week
in Orlando. And blended it was, as we
outlined in our summary, the majority
of the 275 breakout sessions dealt with
technology enhanced learning at school.
I participated in several sessions that
reviewed the updated Blended Learning
Implementation Guide.
Like corporate and military training
most K-12 and higher education will soon
be blended. I even saw an app for blended
bible studies last week. But blended isn’t
the goal, it’s just a better way to personalize learning.
Competency-based learning. A foundation paper on competency-based learning I reviewed over the weekend did a
great job of enumerating the wide range
of issues of moving from a system based
on time to one based on learning. In Considering Competency-Based Education I
said, “It will probably take us a generation to fully embrace high common expectation, blended formats, and show what
you know policies and practices.”
Last week, Chris Sturgis reported
Takeaways from EAA School Visits ,
“It was great seeing a highly developed competency-based model that was
using blended learning extensively. The
more time I spend around schools doing
blended learning and competency-based
learning, the more I’m thinking that to
get to competency we have to figure out
how to offer much more vivid deeper
learning experiences.” I share Chris’ enthusiasm for blended learning that incorporates projects.
The architectural shift competencybased environments where students
progress based on demonstrated mastery
isn’t really the goal, it’s just a better way
to personalize learning.
Personalized learning. “In a personalized learning environment, students’
learning experiences - what they learn,
and how, when, and where they learn it
- are tailored to their individual developmental needs, skills, and interests,”
said Scott Benson in a recent blog. “Although where, how, and when they learn
might vary according to their needs, students also develop deep connections to
each other and their teachers and other
adults.”
Benson, who was recognized by iNACOL for his contributions to the field last
week, outlined four essential attributes
of a personalized learning model in this
acceptance speech:
n Learner Profiles: Captures individual skills, gaps, strengths, weaknesses,
interests and aspirations of each student.
n Personal Learning Paths: Each
student has learning goals & objectives.
Learning experiences are diverse and
matched to the individual needs of students.
n Individual Mastery: Continually
assesses student progress against clearly
defined standards and goals. Students
advance based on demonstrated mastery.
n Flexible Learning Environment: Multiple instructional delivery
approaches that continuously optimize
available resources in support of student
learning.
That’s a pretty good list. Despite progress toward next-gen platforms, all four
elements remain more aspirational than
manageable for schools. Scott makes the
case for continued public, private, and
philanthropic investment in the toolset
so that all students can soon benefit from
personalized learning.
Tom is a director for iNACOL.
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
n
edweek.org
7
Published November 22, 2013, in Education Week Finding Common Ground Blog
Commentary
Standardization? Personalization? Or Both?
By Peter DeWitt
“It’s what good teachers have always
known. That their job is not to teach subjects, but to teach students.”
Sir Ken Robinson
S ir Ken Robinson, one of my favorite
education experts, believes strongly
in personalized learning. He has been
quoted as saying:
“Personalized learning, to me, is the process
of contouring learning to the individuals
that you’re dealing with, recognizing that
we all have different strengths and weaknesses, different interests [and] different
ways of learning.”
Education critics believe that we do need a
national set of standards which are internationally benchmarked, and seem to have very
little personalization at all. If you have a moment, do a quick Google search on “Do we need
education standards?” Most of the results I received were all from the U.S. Department of
Education, state education departments and
for-profit companies.
Without sounding too cynical, I do like the
idea of standards, especially if they are internationally benchmarked. However, politicians
and policymakers keep using international
comparison data incorrectly just to focus on
the failure of public education, and push for
a more standards-based education, which is
why there is a resistance to any standards.
They are being sold as the end all to be all and
they are not.
Trying to be optimistic, I would prefer to
focus on the fact that we are not failing but
can always improve. There must be a happy
medium between personalized learning and
standards....or am I just too optimistic? Sir
Ken Robinson continued to say:
“It isn’t that everyone has to learn different things, although eventually our interests
will take us in different directions,” he continued. “But in terms of the things we want
all people to learn ... personalized learning is
finding the best ways to engage with people
with different interests, passions and ways
of thinking. It’s what good teachers have always known. That their job is not to teach
subjects, but to teach students.”
Although I like to think globally, I feel the
need for practicality as well. If the main concern is that standards create a one-size-fitsall approach to learning, can’t we find a way
to personalize the learning around those set
of standards, at the same time we encourage
students to explore their own deeper passions?
This world would be a very boring place if
we were all the same, so if that’s what standards set out to do, they’re wrong. But...do
standards cause that sameness or is it what
we do with them? Is it possible to provide a
base of information at the same time we encourage personalized learning? Is personalized learning still possible with a standardsbased education?
Standards and Personalization?
Recently, I read a few blogs that stated
standards are the worst thing to happen to
education. Are they really the worst thing?
Or is it the testing that came along with
them? I believe it’s the testing and accountability on steroids that came along with
them that are the worst thing we have seen
in education, which of course have only gotten worse in the past few years.
Is it possible to have standards without
having standardized tests because the problem may not be the standard...but what we
do with it? And yes, that goes for the Common Core State Standards as well. Is the
problem the Core or what we do with the
Core?
Like you, I have seen many examples of
homework that isn’t age appropriate and
confusing. However, does the school leader or
teacher have any responsibility in what goes
home, because it might not be the Core but
the worksheet that was chosen? I mean...let’s
face it, we have all seen inappropriate homework long before the Core entered our lives.
Please don’t get me wrong because I am
proceeding with caution when it comes to
the CCSS. I believe that it might provide a
good base for some kids, but the reality is
that there will always be students who do
not meet the expectations of the CCSS from
year to year.
What happens then?
I have a hard time thinking that kids who
come in knowing 1/16th the language and
vocabulary that their peers know are somehow going to rise to the challenge of more
“rigorous” work. There are parts of the CCSS
that need to change, and if they do not, there
will be a mass exodus of states using them
because of parents and educator pressure.
Perhaps all of the money being spent on
flawed (and abusive) state testing could
somehow be directed toward strengthening
what happens between the ages of birth and
four before children enter kindergarten.
I read a blog somewhere, and I’m not sure
where, so please forgive me for not linking to
it...that we cannot expect every student to
break the 4-minute mile. This doesn’t mean
we can’t encourage all kids to run, but everyone’s Personal Record (PR) is different. Just
because someone doesn’t break the 4-minute mile doesn’t mean they didn’t experience
growth. And just because they didn’t break
that barrier doesn’t mean they can’t be successful somewhere else.
In the End
Is it possible that it doesn’t have to be all
or nothing? Is it possible that both can be
done? Standards become a problem when
we expect everyone to reach the same benchmark, but what if educators were allowed a
bit of flexibility? Standards are a problem
when we think there is only one way to show
success, which is where personalization enters into the picture.
If our only benchmark to show success
with standards is through a test, it’s abusive and wrong. We should not be referring
to kids as a “1, 2, 3, or 4” depending on their
score from high stakes testing, and that
happens far too often, and has devastating
effects on any learning that could be accomplished. Educators should always have the
freedom to use standards as a base but get to
the heart of individual learning through personalization. Students and teachers should
be given autonomy in their learning.
My fear of what is being done with standards goes further beyond what happens
with kids in elementary school who hate
school because they feel that they are not
good enough. My fear continues on for those
students who drop out of school because they
believe it is their only option. If we could
offer personalization for them without the
constant fear of accountability, perhaps they
would not drop out in the first place.
Advertisement
Back to Table of Contents
Promote Deeper Learning and
Check for Understanding
where learning clicks
How It Clicks
It’s no surprise to teachers that deep thinking and transferable knowledge result when students fully understand the
principles behind specific facts and concepts. “Knowledge is constructed through social interactions among people,” writes
Karen Swan. “Better quality learning results from the greater personalization of learning experiences.”1 In a blended learning
classroom, the technology is part and parcel of teaching students the facts and concepts, but the deep learning—the true
understanding of the concepts—comes from teachers.
It is teachers whose work takes information and turns it into knowledge—building deep-thinking strategies and “positive
attitudes toward learning that have been shown to enhance deeper learning.”2 It is teachers who fully develop student
learning that supports “more complex learning for their students”3 through their own:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deep understanding of their subject matter;
Knowledge of students’ common ideas and misconceptions related to the subject matter;
Knowledge of the thinking of individual students;
Sensitivity to cultural, ethnic, and gender differences;
Knowledge of how children learn; and
Flexible, adaptable teaching strategies to engage learners.4
Using these skills in a blended learning classroom,
teachers are able to help students verbalize their thought
processes, correct misconceptions, and resolve problemsolving deficits—resulting in students who have deep
knowledge of a subject, topic, or concept.
We know that when students engage with content in active
ways, transfer of knowledge is increased. This is enhanced
when teachers frequently check for understanding and
allow students to learn not only by themselves but also
“vicariously,” with other students in the class.5
In a blended learning classroom, the
technology is part and parcel of teaching
students the facts and concepts, but the
deep learning—the true understanding of
the concepts—comes from teachers.
In a blended learning environment, students not only have access to individualized, engaging online content, but also to
teachers who coach and mentor them to elaborate, question, and explain—asking students to think about a text or problem
they encountered in the online course, supplementing the online work with offline examples, encouraging group discussion,
and providing valuable one-on-one time when confusion arises.
Advertisement
Back to Table of Contents
Making It Click
Rio Rancho Cyber Academy
Rio Rancho, New Mexico
Elaine Manicke, Principal
Heidi Parnell, Online Program Manager
Now in its eighth year, the Rio Rancho Cyber Academy serves 158 students in grades 6–12 in Rio Rancho, the third largest city
in New Mexico. The school prides itself on its hybrid setting, merging traditional teaching methods with the latest technology.
Students at the Cyber Academy spend two to three days a week on campus and work off-campus the rest of the week. While
on campus, students receive one-on-one help from eight teachers and work in groups for a variety of purposes. Off campus,
students have near-constant access to teachers, who check their work regularly and monitor their progress.
Nearly six years ago, the staff at the Cyber Academy developed a document of guiding principles, Writing and Thinking Across
the Curriculum. The goal of this document was to establish clear, concise expectations for student learning for all members of
the Cyber Academy community.
The concept is simple: Identify the skillsets all students need in order to achieve success in creating, discussing, and
presenting through interactive work. Skills include:
• Reading and answering questions to develop vocabulary and comprehension, to activate schema, to predict and question;
• Note-taking to use vocabulary and refresh objectives, to study and review, and to underscore relevant information;
• Writing short answer responses and essays to determine writing purpose, to think and organize, and to use relevant
information; and
• Developing thinking maps to organize thinking and information, to document information, and to discuss learning in class.
These skills aren’t only for students. They also help teachers, says Elaine Manicke, the Principal of the Academy. Using this
rubric, “We set expectations for students, ensure standards are taught, assess student competence, and have a chance for
immediate intervention if someone struggles.” Moreover, teacher evaluations and expectations for performance have “helped
to define very specific expectations that are key to student success,” Manicke notes.
Teachers at the Cyber Academy mentor, monitor, motivate, and model, helping students understand what mastery of a topic
or skill looks like, and encouraging them to take ownership of their success and learning. If students struggle with an online
activity, they can reach out to a teacher—either in person or by e-mail—for immediate help.
Even if students don’t reach out for help, the data in programs like Edgenuity make it easy for teachers at the Cyber
Academy to assess understanding—they map student work to the established lesson objectives, and reteach if necessary. “In
reteaching,” says Heidi Parnell, Online Program Manager for the district, “the focus is on each individual student’s learning
through small group or one-on-one tutoring to attend to learning gaps. Teachers have the means within the enriched virtual
learning environment to practice personalized learning and adapt to the needs of their students, reinforcing and encouraging
higher levels of comprehension.”
In this blended environment, the “Cyber Academy has so much more flexibility to meet the needs of students,” says Manicke.
“That can be a scary thing, when you think about a classroom full of kids all learning at different places and paces.” This kind
of work requires a tight-knit group of communicators working together to serve students. At the Cyber Academy, there are no
students on campus on Friday afternoons, so the teachers use that time to collaborate and plan.
Advertisement
Back to Table of Contents
Deeper Learning Dos
Do establish a routine. Students, especially those who gravitate toward alternative learning programs, need to understand
the expectations placed on them. A daily routine (both on and off campus) set by the teacher goes a long way toward
reaching those expectations.
Do empower students to advocate for themselves. If they believe their understanding of a topic or skillset isn’t reflected in
the data, they should feel comfortable saying so. The teacher’s job is to facilitate learning, and sometimes in the argument
for mastery, everything clicks.
Deeper Learning Don’ts
Don’t let students believe the work is too hard. You start losing kids when they think they can’t do it or that they won’t
understand. Make sure they see their progress. Find little places to make them active owners of even the smallest
amounts of learning.
Don’t believe all teachers can do this without training. Blended learning takes a special kind of teacher. Lecturers and
assigners are not enough. This work takes highly qualified subject area teachers who can facilitate and mentor to get at
learning in a different way and ensure it’s really happening, no matter where the student is.
References
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of
quality online education: Practice and direction. Sloan-C series, vol. 4. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 13.
1
2
National Research Council (2012), 186.
Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of
professional education. In G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice (3-32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
3
4
National Research Council (2012), 186.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of
quality online education: Practice and direction. Sloan-C series, vol. 4. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 33.
5
where learning clicks
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
n
edweek.org
4
Published February 29, 2012, in Education Week
Commentary
Fighting the Enemies of Personalized Learning
T By Joseph S. Renzulli
here are conferences for just about
everything these days, but because
of my interest in personalized learning, it appeared that this one on
redesigning personalized learning would be
just the ticket for gaining new insights into
how learning can be more responsive to the
divergent needs and diverse populations in
today’s schools. Most educators agree that the
one-size-fits-all curriculum needs addressing,
and this by-invitation-only “summit” showed
so much promise that I wangled an invite.
Resplendent with all the buzzwords of the
personalization and differentiation mystique
(“flexible,” “student-driven,” “authentic,” “everywhere learning,” “systemic redesign”—to
mention a few), the event would be staffed by
the gurus of school reform and attended by
education power brokers and CEOs from the
public and private sectors.
Wow! What could be more appealing and
hopeful for a change from the harmful direction that education has taken since the
No Child Left Behind Act turned the learning process into a gigantic text-consumption
and weakness-based test-prep industry? And
the expectation that technology was a major
answer to this promise of a revolution in personalizing learning made the conference even
more appealing.
The emergence of technology in education
has certainly created a renewed interest in
personalizing learning and providing teachers with the tools necessary for differentiating
curriculum. Early efforts to use technology
to personalize learning can be traced back to
B.F. Skinner’s teaching machines, which were
designed to use rote-and-drill to automate
the task of programmed instruction. Get the
correct answer and you moved on to the next
question. A wrong answer recycled the student
through more practice material until he or she
answered the question correctly.
“True personalization requires more than
just looking at achievement levels and trying
to compensate for deficiencies.”
Teaching machines were another failure in
the long history of so-called “innovations” in
education, but when computers and the Internet came along we seemed poised to capitalize on technology that placed vast amounts of
the world’s knowledge at students’ fingertips.
Just as Gutenberg revolutionized access to
knowledge, at least for the restricted number
of scholars of his time, we now have the capacity to make knowledge public for anyone who
can read and log in.
It soon became clear that the general focus
of the conference was on basic curriculum
competencies and more-efficient procedures
for mastery and improved achievement-test
scores. Now, rather than covering material in
a lock-step fashion for all students at the same
time, teachers can direct content at different
levels to students according to their varied
achievement levels. Although this use of technology extends (by a giant step) the traditional
one-size-fits-all instructional model, it only accounts for varying competency levels rather
than examining at least three other categories of learner characteristics that define true
personalization. This restricted focus led me to
conclude that we are using today’s technology
for what might be called “Gutenberg-online”—
the electronic shuffling of worksheets and
standard-text material—and that, pedagogically, we haven’t progressed much beyond the
type of learning that Skinner advocated with
his teaching machines.
A similar case can be made for the explosion
of online courses currently available to schoolage students. These courses have great value
“
to compensate for deficiencies. At least three
other characteristics of the learner and differentiation of content and process are necessary
to give us a more comprehensive profile of student potentials and point us in the direction of
making modifications in the learning process.
In addition to achievement levels, information about student interests, learning styles,
and preferred modes of expression allow us
to make decisions about personalization that
take multiple dimensions of the learner into
account.
This information can easily be gathered
and analyzed through the use of computergenerated profiles and from search engines
that match multiple categorized resources
from databanks containing vast quantities of
highly interactive online material. Teachers
can use this technology to infuse into any and
all standards-driven curriculum highly engaging enrichment materials that can make any
lesson or unit of study more exciting, engaging, and enjoyable. Math concepts improve
and become more relevant when students use
technology to design and build their own roller
coaster. Students can gain a greater appreciation and understanding of ancient Egyptian
culture when they do a virtual dissection and
True personalization requires more than
just looking at achievement levels and trying
to compensate for deficiencies.”
B.F. Skinner
when not available locally, but they almost always follow a linear, sequential instructional
model rather than a more inductive and investigative model of learning. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a course is a course is a course,
or in education-speak: Standards-driven prescriptive material is geared toward answering
the questions at the end of the chapter and
taking another achievement test. Skinner’s
teaching-machine movement failed because
we were treating students like Pavlov’s dogs.
We could face the same consequences with today’s technology unless we expand our vision
about what personalization could be and how
technology can help make it happen.
True personalization requires more than
just looking at achievement levels and trying
preservation of their own mummy.
The differentiation of content requires adding more depth and complexity to the curriculum rather than transmitting more or easier
factual material. By focusing on structures of
knowledge, basic principles, functional concepts, and methods of inquiry in particular
disciplines, students are prepared to assume
roles as firsthand inquirers rather than mere
consumers of information. The differentiation of process requires the use of a variety of
instructional strategies that differ from the
traditional deductive, didactic, prescriptive
approach used in most classrooms. Respect
for learning-style variations can be achieved
by using instructional strategies such as
simulations, Socratic inquiry, problem-based
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
learning, dramatizations, and individual and
small-group investigations of real problems.
Expression-style preferences can be accommodated by giving students opportunities to
communicate visually, graphically, artistically,
and through animatronics, multimedia, and
various community-service involvements.
The biggest enemies of differentiation are
time and the overprescription of learning. Before the availability of computers and the Internet, teachers simply did not have the time
to find and direct customized resources to individual students.
Our obsession with content mastery and
Skinner’s behavioral theory of learning are
slowly but surely giving way to an interest in
personalization and differentiation. While it is
understandable that our early use of technology was mainly an adaptation of Gutenbergonline and a teaching-machine mentality of
what learning is all about, we now have both
the pedagogical rationale and technological capability to use the many dimensions of student
characteristics that clearly and unequivocally
result in higher engagement, enjoyment, and
enthusiasm for learning.
Amazon and Netflix know what we like to
read and view, and they make use of this information to “differentiate” the material they
send us. We can do the same thing to enrich
the entire learning environment by capitalizing on a broader spectrum of learner characteristics, creating comprehensive computergenerated student profiles, and using the
interactive capabilities of today’s technology to
revitalize learning. By so doing, we can minimize boredom and make learning the challenging, enjoyable, and relevant process that
it should be.
Joseph S. Renzulli is the director of the Neag
Center for Talent Development at the University
of Connecticut, Storrs. He is a recent winner of the
Harold W. McGraw Jr. Award for Innovation in
Education. His most recent work is an Internetbased strength-assessment and resource-matching
program.
n
edweek.org
5
Copyright ©2014 by Editorial Projects
in Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication shall be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted by any means,
electronic or otherwise, without the
written permission of the copyright
holder.
Readers may make up to 5 print copies
of this publication at no cost for
personal, non-commercial use,
provided that each includes a full
citation of the source.
Visit www.edweek.org/go/copies for
information about additional print
photocopies.
Published by Editorial Projects
in Education, Inc.
6935 Arlington Road, Suite 100
Bethesda, MD, 20814
Phone: (301) 280-3100
www.edweek.org
Back to Table of Contents
Education WeeK Spotlight on Personalized Learning
WEB
Links
n
edweek.org
Resources on
Personalized Learning
resources
Now featuring interactive hyperlinks.
Just click and go.
Blended Learning Implementation Guide
http://gettingsmart.com/2013/09/blended-learning-implementation-2-0-released/
Digital Learning NOW!, 2013
The Networked Student Model for Construction of Personal
Learning Environments: Balancing Teacher Control and Student
Autonomy
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/drexler.html
Wendy Drexler
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, Volume 26 Issue 3
NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 Edition
http://www.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12
Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M.
The New Media Consortium, 2012
SymbalooEDU
http://www.symbalooedu.com/
Takeaways and New Questions from EAA School Visits
http://gettingsmart.com/2013/11/takeaways-new-questions-eaa-school-visits/
Chris Sturgis
CompetencyWorks.org, October 2013
10
Back to Table of Contents
Get the information and perspective you need on the education
issues you care about most with Education Week Spotlights
The Achievement Gap
Algebra
l
Assessment
l
Classroom Management Common Standards
l
l
Autism
l
Bullying
l
Charter School Leadership
l
Differentiated Instruction
l
Dropout Prevention
l
l
E-Learning ELL Assessment and Teaching ELLs in the Classroom Flu and Schools Getting The Most From
l
l
Your IT Budget
l
Gifted Education Homework
l
Assistive Technology
Behind
l
Math Instruction
Pay for Performance
l
to the Top
l
l
School Uniforms and Dress Codes
l
Year
l
l
l
l
Implementing Online Learning
Middle and High School Literacy
Personalized Learning
Reading Instruction
l
l
l
Principals
STEM in Schools
Technology in the Classroom
l
l
Teacher Evaluation
l
Inclusion and
No Child Left
Parental Involvement
l
Reinventing Professional Development
www
Motivation
l
l
Race
Response to Intervention
l
l
l
Teacher Tips for the New
Tips for New Teachers
mAY 2010
InteractIve
cOntentS:
g Mixes it Up
1 Blended Learnin
Accountability
4 Spotlight on
Up on Virtual Ed.
5 Districts Team
for Lesson Model
8 Schools ‘Flip’
Academy
Promoted by Khan
10 Virtual Ed. Faces
Criticism
Sharp
ion
12 Virtual Educat
Rise of Autism
Targets
Gifted
Vistas Online for
14 New
Students
ts’ Virtual
16 ‘At-Risk Studen
Challenges
cOmmentary:
t
18 The School-Interne
Its Impact
‘Relationship’ and
g
on Online Learnin
reSOurceS:
ing
Blended Learn
mixes it up
By Katie Ash
mix faceing models, which
s blended learn
become
e instruction,
to-face and onlin
oom educain schools, classr
more common
are navigatalike
tors
nistra
tors and admi
how schools
and
ers—
role of teach
ing the changing
new role.
rt them in that
can best suppo
education,”
new world for
“This is a whole
of school
er, the acting head
says Royce Conn
cisco Flex
tudent San Fran
178-s
the
for
l.
c charter schoo
spend
Academy, a publi
nts
school, stude
—
In the grades 9-12
floor”
“the
on
day working
about half the
ls where
of study carre
s
a large open room
with their laptop
down
er
ed by
students hunk
curricula provid
online
with
to work
of the day
the other half
K12 Inc.—and
Which
s with teachers.
the
in pullout group
when
s,
pullout group
students are in
meet dehow often they
groups meet, and
nt is makess each stude
pend on the progr
says Conner.
online classes,
is one of
ing in his or her
on for using data
passi
a
g
ers,
Havin
for in his teach
Conner looks
of
the skills that
an integral part
it becomes such
he says, since
.
process each week
their planning
A
CONTENTS:
NOw fEaTuriNg
iNTEraCTivE hypErliNkS
Just click on your story
and go.
1 The Personal Approach
4 New Teachers Look for
Differentation Help
5 E-Learning Seeks
a Custom Fit
7 Exploring Differentiated
Instruction
COmmENTary:
9 Differentiate,
Don’t Standardize
iNTErviEw:
11 Making a Difference
aSk ThE mENTOr:
14 Co-Teaching in the
Multi-Level Classroom
On Personalize
d
Published February 3, 2010, in Education Week Digital Directions
Editor’s Note:
Lapto
tablets, and other ps,
technologies
can engage studen
ts and allow
them to work at
an individual pace.
But, for teache
rs, administrato
rs,
and policymaker
s, there are
questions about
the
implementation
and effectivenes
s
of tailored instruc
tion. This
Spotlight exami
nes how educa
tors
can make “intell
igent” assessments
of their studen
ts and integrate
technology to
deliver personalized
learning exper
iences.
the personal
APPRoAch
By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
Digital tools for defining
and targeting students’
strengths and weaknesses
could help build a kind of
individualized education
plan for every student.
T
eachers have always known that a typical
class of two dozen or more students can
INtEractIvE
include vastly different skill levels and
learning styles. But meeting those varied
academic needs with a defined curriculum, time
limitations, and traditional instructional tools can be
daunting for even the most skilled instructor.
cONtENtS:
1 Navigating the
Path to
Personalized Educat
ion
4 The Personal
Approach
6 Moving Beyond
One-Size-Fits-All
7 Policies Seen
to Slow Person
alized
Learning
9 Researchers
Tackle Personalized
Learning
10 ‘Hybrid’ Charte
r Schools
on the Move
11 Credit-Recove
ry Classes
Take a Personal
Approach
INtErvIEw:
13 Passion-Based
Learning
for the 21st Centur
y
cOmmENtary:
15 High Stakes
of Standards-Ba
sed
Accountability
rESOurcES:
18 Resources on
Personalized
Learning
Learning
Published March
17,
2011, in Educa
tion Week
Navigating
the Path to
Personalized
Ed
A Vermont initiative
to improve learning
in middle
schools is working
through the challeng
es of using the
latest digital tools
and different teaching
approaches
By Kevin Bushw
eller
I
n a classroom
on the third floor
of a 110-year-ol
d faded beige
brick building,
20 middle schoo
ers of varying
lsizes and attitu
des flip
open their black
HP laptops for
an interactive lesson
on the Declaration
of Independence.
The students
at Edmunds Middl
e School are crafting and revisi
ng poems about
how they would
felt the day after
have
the declaration
was signed, but
a personal twist:
with
Each student
has taken on
sona of a patrio
the pert, loyalist, or moder
ate. Teacher Brent
Truchon, a lanya
rd dangling aroun
the attached
d his neck with
keys and schoo
l ID badge tucke
pocket of his red
d in the
button-down
shirt, moves consta
around the room,
ntly
kneeling next
to students and
laptops to give
their
one-on-one atten
tion where neede
before stepping
to the front of
d,
the class to rally
all to put more
them
imagery into
their poems.
istock/zigarrensc
Implementing
20 Resources on
Online Learning
Published March
On Differentiated Instruction
Editor’s Note: With student
diversity growing dramatically
and schools facing mounting
pressure to boost achievement, many teachers are
looking for ways to attend to
students’ unique learning
needs. This Spotlight focuses
on how teachers are using
differentiated instruction to
give students individualized
support.
hachtel
istock/mbortolin
o
Online and
Editor’s Note:
g models have
blended learnin
students learn.
reshaped how
g can assist
Remote learnin
a variety of
students with
are also
needs, but there
challenges
accountability
virtual
with
ated
associ
Spotlight offers
education. This
best use and
tips on how to
g, inside
learnin
apply online
classroom.
and outside the
ology Counts
tion Week Techn
15, 2012, in Educa
2012
Cover photo illustration_Christopher Powers/Vanessa Solis/Gina Tomko_Digital Directions
arning
ting Online Le
On Implemen
ww
spotlight
iStock/k yoshino
2012
l
View the complete collection of Education Week Spotlights
www.edweek.org/go/spotlights