Edclicking Keyword Cloud
By Dr. Harry Tennant
Sunday, December 5, 2010 Guest Post: Individualized online instruction
Clayton M. Christensen has written some very interesting books on how innovation works in business: The Innovators Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution. More recently he applied his theories of how innovation takes hold and takes over (or doesn't) to education in Disrupting Class / How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. Once again, a very interesting book. Without recapping the entire argument, let me just give the bottom line: online learning will change everything, but it won't happen by schools applying online learning to their core subjects, math, reading, language arts, science and social studies. It will begin with online remedial learning, online learning purchased by parents of struggling students, online courses on subjects that are not offered locally, online learning for home schoolers and online learning for preschoolers. What do we know about the value of individualized instruction? Does having a personal tutor result in significantly higher student achievement than learning in a typical classroom? And, if personal tutors do help students to significantly higher achievement, why? Suggested answers to "why" include
Is it true that individualized instruction is superior to classroom instruction for the above three reasons? Is small group instruction (3 - 5 collaborating students) even better than individualized instruction? Posted at 2:24 PM Keywords: by Harry Tennant , Online learning 6 Comments |
Guest post by |
R. Jorczak said... It is hard to argue with the assertion that individualized instruction is the gold standard. It is a bit harder to claim that online learning alone will provide such individualized instruction, as individualizing would still be costly. Online learning does potentially make individualization a bit more practical than classroom individualization, in my view. Instruction tailored to the individual would be based on factors known to affect learning, such as the learner's prior knowledge. It would not be based on learning "styles" as popularly defined (because there is no evidence that such styles affect learning), though differences in cognitive ability might affect how instruction should be optimized. Interests could be a factor, but much of what is targeted in formal education is simply not interesting to many students, so it is unclear how that factor might affect individualization. It is not clear, for example, that using examples that are more interesting to the student would improve learning. Also, it is unclear how a learning management system would determine "interests:" of potential students. Sunday, December 5, 2010 2:39 PM |
|
Harry Tennant said... The cost issue you mention is particularly interesting. While creating an online learning course that tailored instruction to the individual may be costly, presenting the online course would be practically free. This is opposite to classroom courses where individualization requires extensive teacher attention. Sunday, December 5, 2010 6:54 PM |
|
Harry Tennant said... I think Christenen had in mind making a wider range of courses available to match student interests. Examples are making AP courses and specialized courses like astronomy in small schools or home schools. Sunday, December 5, 2010 7:09 PM |
|
Dan S. Martin said... Learning will rarely be individualized, while ideally it is almost always differentiated. The difference being a near tailored learning experience versus one that incorporates some degree of choice from a variety of learning experiences that, though not nearly individualized, will better allow the learner to participate in choosing the learning option that best appeals to their skill set, interest level, learning objectives, and other considerations. From my empirical observations as an educator (and perhaps common sense) it seems clear that, as a whole, students excel more in subjects and lessons they find interesting and are successful at. Beyond that, in observing students, it seems clear that they are most successful at tasks where some component of metacognition was part of the lesson, including recognizing ones' learning styles, strengths, and weaknesses. Sunday, December 5, 2010 7:22 PM |
|
R. Jorczak said... Dan, I read you as a saying that choice is a plus for instruction. I think it is clear that increased choice (of some type) can improve motivation. Less clear is that choice will improve performance. Also, the scope of choice has to be considered. Should students be allowed to set their own learning goals? That idea is somewhat contrary to the purpose of formal education in my view, and is certainly contrary to the movement to set clear standards. Standards specify what students should learn. And, to some extent the culture providing the education should get input into what should be learned. I would argue that humans are, in general, poor self assessors and therefor would be poor at managing their own formal learning. They would be particularly poor at judging what they don't know. As for your personal observation, which I also observe, I suggest that you can't tell if students are more interested in subjects they do well in rather than necessarily the other way around. Monday, December 6, 2010 1:15 PM |