Richard Culatta’s TedxTalk (2013) focused on three major ideas when it comes to using technology as a tool for learning, that it personalizes learning, leads to collaborative problem solving, and provides immediate feedback. This concept of personalizing learning through technology was an idea that truly resonated with me, as half of the classes I teach have a wide variety of learners. As such, it was my goal to find out if providing students with technology that individualized their learning would lead to improved academic outcomes.
The first article I read relating to personalized learning was called TECH8 intelligent and adaptive e-learning system: Integration into Technology and Science classrooms in secondary schools (Dolenc & Abersek, 2015). The study was based in an 8th grade classroom in Slovenia where a program called TECH8 was introduced into classrooms. The goal was to study the outcome of using this program to determine if it did have an effect on student performance. To test the TECH8, researchers choose a unit on gears, which traditionally was the unit that students struggled with the most. They then split the class into the control, who were taught traditionally, and the experimental group, who used the TECH8 system. As students used TECH8, it would respond to their level of knowledge and understanding. Students who were struggling would be presented with supplementary material and those who understood were moved forward with the lessons. At the end of the unit both groups were tested, and the group that used the TECH8 system did, on average, about 10% better than those students taught traditionally. This study also pointed out one of their major challenges was motivating students to continue with the work if they were struggling.
The second article I read was called Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-analysis (Ma, Adesope, Nesbit, and Liu, 2014). This study took data already compiled from other studies concerning the use of ITS and examined the learning outcomes for the students. These intelligent tutoring systems include those computer-based programs that respond to student answers to provide reinforcement or allow students to move forward. When comparing these studies, an emphasis was placed on the difference between teacher led instruction and the use of ITS, as well as the effect of ITS on students at different stages of their education. Researchers found that the use of intelligent tutoring systems resulted in higher learning outcomes for students as compared to whole group, teacher-led instruction. Interestingly, they also found that students using ITS had higher learning outcomes than those using a non-ITS computer-based instruction. It was also found that ITS is effective for students at all stages of education from young students through post-secondary education. There was not a statistical difference between the intelligent tutoring systems and small group instruction however, which was another interesting find.
Culatta points out in his video the difference between using technology to re-imagine education versus just digitalizing current learning materials. When reading the ITS and Learning outcomes study, I think it emphasizes this point. The study found that there was a difference in using systems that responded to students rather than a set of materials that was on the computer. Culatta also emphasizes that technology allows educators to change the pace of a lesson depending on the needs of the learner. The findings of the TECH8 study showed that personalizing the learning and allowing those who struggled to have more time and more reinforcement resulted in improved outcomes for those students. I did find it interesting that the ITS study did not find a difference between the use of ITS and small group instruction. Culatta did not discuss this idea that personalized learning can come from the use of small groups and I think it is an important topic to think about in education. At this time though, I do not see it being realistic that our classrooms will get any smaller, so these ITS systems can help us bridge the gap.
When I think about Maker Education, I think that it is an important tool that is beneficial in individualized learning. Allowing students to use their own creativity and knowledge to create something new is the foundation of the Maker Movement. This is similar to individualized learning, where the basis is what students already know and giving them the freedom to work at their own pace. I think that including Maker projects into a lesson that is centered on individualized learning would be a great way to extend student thinking beyond the classroom itself. I do wonder at what point in learning students would be prepared for a Maker activity, would it come in the beginning or toward the end of the learning? I also wonder if the timing would differ for different students.
References
Culatta, R., (January 10, 2013). Reimagining Learning: Richard Culatta at tedxbeaconstreet. [Ted x Talks]. Retrieved from http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Reimagining-Learning-Richard-Cu
Dolenc,K. & Abersek, B. (2015). TECH8 intelligent and adaptive e-learningsystem: Integration into Technology and Science classrooms in lower secondary schools. Computers & Education, 82. 354-365.
Ma, W., Adesope, O., Nesbit, J. & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (4), 901-918.
The first article I read relating to personalized learning was called TECH8 intelligent and adaptive e-learning system: Integration into Technology and Science classrooms in secondary schools (Dolenc & Abersek, 2015). The study was based in an 8th grade classroom in Slovenia where a program called TECH8 was introduced into classrooms. The goal was to study the outcome of using this program to determine if it did have an effect on student performance. To test the TECH8, researchers choose a unit on gears, which traditionally was the unit that students struggled with the most. They then split the class into the control, who were taught traditionally, and the experimental group, who used the TECH8 system. As students used TECH8, it would respond to their level of knowledge and understanding. Students who were struggling would be presented with supplementary material and those who understood were moved forward with the lessons. At the end of the unit both groups were tested, and the group that used the TECH8 system did, on average, about 10% better than those students taught traditionally. This study also pointed out one of their major challenges was motivating students to continue with the work if they were struggling.
The second article I read was called Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-analysis (Ma, Adesope, Nesbit, and Liu, 2014). This study took data already compiled from other studies concerning the use of ITS and examined the learning outcomes for the students. These intelligent tutoring systems include those computer-based programs that respond to student answers to provide reinforcement or allow students to move forward. When comparing these studies, an emphasis was placed on the difference between teacher led instruction and the use of ITS, as well as the effect of ITS on students at different stages of their education. Researchers found that the use of intelligent tutoring systems resulted in higher learning outcomes for students as compared to whole group, teacher-led instruction. Interestingly, they also found that students using ITS had higher learning outcomes than those using a non-ITS computer-based instruction. It was also found that ITS is effective for students at all stages of education from young students through post-secondary education. There was not a statistical difference between the intelligent tutoring systems and small group instruction however, which was another interesting find.
Culatta points out in his video the difference between using technology to re-imagine education versus just digitalizing current learning materials. When reading the ITS and Learning outcomes study, I think it emphasizes this point. The study found that there was a difference in using systems that responded to students rather than a set of materials that was on the computer. Culatta also emphasizes that technology allows educators to change the pace of a lesson depending on the needs of the learner. The findings of the TECH8 study showed that personalizing the learning and allowing those who struggled to have more time and more reinforcement resulted in improved outcomes for those students. I did find it interesting that the ITS study did not find a difference between the use of ITS and small group instruction. Culatta did not discuss this idea that personalized learning can come from the use of small groups and I think it is an important topic to think about in education. At this time though, I do not see it being realistic that our classrooms will get any smaller, so these ITS systems can help us bridge the gap.
When I think about Maker Education, I think that it is an important tool that is beneficial in individualized learning. Allowing students to use their own creativity and knowledge to create something new is the foundation of the Maker Movement. This is similar to individualized learning, where the basis is what students already know and giving them the freedom to work at their own pace. I think that including Maker projects into a lesson that is centered on individualized learning would be a great way to extend student thinking beyond the classroom itself. I do wonder at what point in learning students would be prepared for a Maker activity, would it come in the beginning or toward the end of the learning? I also wonder if the timing would differ for different students.
References
Culatta, R., (January 10, 2013). Reimagining Learning: Richard Culatta at tedxbeaconstreet. [Ted x Talks]. Retrieved from http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Reimagining-Learning-Richard-Cu
Dolenc,K. & Abersek, B. (2015). TECH8 intelligent and adaptive e-learningsystem: Integration into Technology and Science classrooms in lower secondary schools. Computers & Education, 82. 354-365.
Ma, W., Adesope, O., Nesbit, J. & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (4), 901-918.